Evidence of a Creator

Originally posted by dj2becker
Mind pointing out which premises are incorrect?

Maybe you should do some research of your own before making sweeping statements.

Here's a starter: http://www.bprc.org/topics/fulfill.html

One of the supposed prophecies is the mentioning of 30 pieces of silver:

I said to them, “If youa think it best, give me my wages; and if not, keep them.” So they weighed for my wages thirty pieces of silver. 13Yahweh said to me, “Throw it to the potter, the handsome price that I was valued at by them!” I took the thirty pieces of silver, and threw them to the potter, in the house of Yahweh.

So I shall refine my analogy.

I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 10 to the 17.
It was 87.
Hey look someone twenty years ago wrote a book where someone mentioned the number 87.
I must be the Messiah. It was predicted that I would choose 87 and I did.

It frankly isn't worth the bother to chase down psuedo-science of cranks that only fool people that have no grounding in either physics or mathematics.

"There are lies, and bigger lies and then there is ststistics"
Can't remember who said that.

probability distribution
The defining description of a random variable; the set of all possible values of a random variable together with the probability of attaining each value or the probability that the value lands in any given range

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
I'm thinking of a number between one and 10 to the 17.

I guess it's 32.

Correct.

Guess I'm the Messiah.

That is amazing. Can you turn some of this water into wine for me, only I'm having a party later and I've little cash for grog. Also some peanuts would be good. Thanks Oh XanthosNZ Our messiah

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
One of the supposed prophecies is the mentioning of 30 pieces of silver:

[i]I said to them, “If youa think it best, give me my wages; and if not, keep them.” So they weighed for my wages thirty pieces of silver. 13Yahweh said to me, “Throw it to the potter, the handsome price that I was valued at by them!” I took the thirty pieces of silver, and threw t ...[text shortened]... ed the number 87.
I must be the Messiah. It was predicted that I would choose 87 and I did.

Does the same book specify where you were born? Was the same book written by multiple authors who never knew of each other? Did all the different authors predict something about you that has come true? Did the authors of the book predict how you are going to die? Not a chance...

But wait a minute actually the Bible does predict someones coming who will claim to be the Messiah. Unnfortunately he will be 2000+ years late, and actually the name is the "Antichrist"...

Originally posted by dj2becker
Does the same book specify where you were born? Was the same book written by multiple authors who never knew of each other? Did all the different authors predict something about you that has come true? Did the authors of the book predict how you are going to die? Not a chance...

But wait a minute actually the Bible does predict someones coming who will ...[text shortened]... siah. Unnfortunately he will be 2000+ years late, and actually the name is the "Antichrist"...

1) Does the same book specify where you were born? : show 8 examples of this.

2) Was the same book written by multiple authors who never knew of each other? : are you assuming 7 coulld read or hear?

3)Did all the different authors predict something about you that has come true? be more specific i.e. match author to the sometiing include also the somethings that dont match.

4)Did the authors of the book predict how you are going to die? all 8 predicted this? if not what did they actually predict?

once done show that the writers of the New Testament didn't use the predictions to manufacture the entire story.

answer each question as concisely as possible use 4 separate post if you like : try and limit your answers to the scope of the question.

don't bother with a huge paste job, as I don't read them, they're too much of a bother to analyse

Originally posted by dj2becker
The fact is that modern science can be used to prove that Jesus Christ is the Messiah. So there is tangible evidence. The laws of probability support the fact that Jesus Christ is the messiah. Thus you can know for sure who the creator is if you accept the Biblical account of creation.

Can't dispute this logic though. If you accept the biblical account of creation then what the bible says is true. Isn't that a bit like saying that if I accept what my mother said about the monster lurking in an un eaten pie then there must have been a monster in that un-eaten pie

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
I'm thinking of a number between one and 10 to the 17.

I guess it's 32.

Correct.

Guess I'm the Messiah.

Excellent example of what is going on. Jesus knew what the predictions were, so it wouldn't be hard to attempt to simulate them. However, that is not what I believe took place. I believe that the simulation came with the authors of the gospels who inserted specifics about Jesus "fulfilling" old testament prophesies to provide validity to their budding religion. Either that or rumor morphed the stories and even created new ones before the text was written.

All of this "proof" depends on the Bible being literal fact. If you believe that Xanthos did not know that the number was 32 before he guessed, then he indeed could be the Messiah. Of course no one in their right mind is going to believe that.

... --- ...

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
I'm thinking of a number between one and 10 to the 17.

I guess it's 32.

Correct.

Guess I'm the Messiah.

You clearly haven't read the Bible.

You're a Pharisee. More interested in what makes you comfortable than in the Truth.

I wasted 5 hours of my life trying to get one of your kinsmen to see the Truth last night.

His position was "Yes, God is a better theory, but I have a GUT FEELING He isn't real."

Utterly ridiculous.

Originally posted by thesonofsaul
Excellent example of what is going on. Jesus knew what the predictions were, so it wouldn't be hard to attempt to simulate them. However, that is not what I believe took place. I believe that the simulation came with the authors of the gospels who inserted specifics about Jesus "fulfilling" old testament prophesies to provide validity to their bud ...[text shortened]... d be the Messiah. Of course no one in their right mind is going to believe that.

... --- ...

I see.

So Jesus manipulated the place of His birth. Manipulated how He would die. Manipulated that the Jews would welcome Him when He rode in on the donkey. Manipulated that they would eventually mock Him. Manipulated it to "appear" that He rose people from the dead and healed the sick. Manipulated it to "appear" He walked on water to the middle of a lake where a ship was. Manipulated it to "appear" like He fulfilled the prophecy of his killer casting lots for his clothes. Manipulated it to "appear" like He was of the line of David.

Honestly, the mental gymnastics people perform to lead away from the inevitable conclusion that Jesus Christ is Lord should be an Olympic event.

I have no doubt you'd place well, saul.

Originally posted by Darfius
I see.

So Jesus manipulated the place of His birth. Manipulated how He would die. Manipulated that the Jews would welcome Him when He rode in on the donkey. Manipulated that they would eventually mock Him. Manipulated it to "appear" that He rose people from the dead and healed the sick. Manipulated it to "appear" He walked on water to the middle ...[text shortened]... t Jesus Christ is Lord should be an Olympic event.

I have no doubt you'd place well, saul.

That's not what he said, Darfius. He is denying that Jesus orchestrated these events. Didn't you read his post where he claimed the following:

"Jesus knew what the predictions were, so it wouldn't be hard to attempt to simulate them. However, that is not what I believe took place..."

Sheesh. 😕

Originally posted by bbarr
That's not what he said, Darfius. He is denying that Jesus orchestrated these events. Didn't you read his post where he claimed the following:

"Jesus knew what the predictions were, so it wouldn't be hard to attempt to simulate them.[b] However, that is not what I believe took place..."

Sheesh. 😕[/b]

Saying it's possible implies you believe it's possible.

For instance, I can't say "It's possible that monkeys can fly, but I believe they don't." and expect you to believe that I don't harbor in some part of my mind the idea that monkeys can fly.

I spelled it out for him and those who would use the theory as a shield how utterly ridiculous it is.

Originally posted by Darfius
Saying it's possible implies you believe it's possible.

For instance, I can't say "It's possible that monkeys can fly, but I believe they don't." and expect you to believe that I don't harbor in some part of my mind the idea that ...[text shortened]... who would use the theory as a shield how utterly ridiculous it is.

This is ridiculous. I can claim that it is possible that a comet will destroy Earth in the next 24 hours, but this in no way indicates that I believe such such a thing will happen. Sonofsaul explicitly denied the views you are attributing to him. You should try to read what people actually write, rather than putting words in their mouth.

Further, Sonofsaul did not say it was even a remote likelihood that Jesus performed the manipulations you mentioned. He claimed that Jesus could have easily attempted to do so. Presumably, the reason he doesn't believe that this is the case is because 1) it would be incredibly unlikely for Jesus to succeed, and 2) there is a much more plausible interpretation (which Sonofsaul explicitly endorses).

Look, you made a mistake and attributed to somebody a view they explicitly and publically reject. Why don't you just suck it up and say "I'm sorry"?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Take a look at this website: http://www.bprc.org/topics/fulfill.html

No.

Take a look at this one:

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/

The creation itself is clear evidence of a creator.

However, inasmuch as one must assume the presence of a creator to label it the creation, the argument becomes a matter of faith.

One might then perceive order, and attribute it to a creator; but then, the order is perceived by a being whose sense of "order" is solipsistic: we perceive it as order because it resembles the order within.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
The creation itself is clear evidence of a creator.

However, inasmuch as one must assume the presence of a creator to label it the creation, the argument becomes a matter of faith.

One might then perceive order, and attribute it to a creator; but then, the order is perceived by a being whose sense of "order" is solipsistic: we perceive it as order because it resembles the order within.

The creation itself is clear evidence of a creator.

However, inasmuch as one must assume the presence of a creator to label it the creation, the argument becomes a matter of faith.

Seeing you state that the creation itself is evidence for a creator, do you not think it is blind faith the assume that that there is no creator?