by Perry 186 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Perry you have been debating these questions for years. What is the purpose of it?
It's obvious that Perry's statements are way over the top as far as belief goes. He wants to be talked out of such ridiculous beliefs and wants to be convinced that Science has the answers and there is no God, at least no God as the Bible tells it.
There is no doubt in my mind that his cognitive dissonance is really giving him headaches and he wants us to help him break free from the mental bonds.
Wouldn't it be better to ask each of these questions in a seperate thread, rather than making a big list of a dozen completely unrelated questions?
If you're looking for an intelligent debate on any of these topics that is.
I'd be tempted to answer even just one of those questions, but I'd imagine my post would get lost amongst the flood of responses to the other questions.
That being said... I'll bite anyway.
How do you account for the odds (1 in 10 to the 157th power) that even just 48 (of 300) Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled in Jesus Christ?
Which crevice did you pull that figure from?
Don't answer that, it was probably this crevice: http://www.emjc3.com/proof/ChristianityIsAFactYouCanProveIt.pdf
I'd reccomend everyone to open that up and do a search for the phrase: "How these figures were arrived at."
Read that section and you'll quickly realise the standard of evidence Perry is using here.
For me to consider a prophecy fullfilled. It has to meet 3 important criteria. And it has to meet all 3, you can't just meet 2 of the criteria and consider it a 'partial win'. NOPE all three or the prophecy falls flat by my standards.
1: The prediction has to be made BEFORE the described events. - and you have to be able to prove the prediction was written earlier than the event. I won't be impressed if you present a hd video recorded on a blue-ray disc 'predicting' World War 2.
2: It has to be a specific prediction with a timeframe or plenty of details. - Saying: "You will experience a devestating fall" is lame, even if I fall off a ladder the following day, or my stocks plummet, I'm not gonna be the slightest bit impressed with your prophecy. On the other hand if you predict: "This Saturday an albino crow is gonna fly through your window and poke your left eye out and then fly out the door you accidentally left open." and it actaully happens, I'll be VERY impressed.
3: The predicted event has to actually occur. And you have to have good evidence it occured. - This is where the vast majority of Jesus prophecies fall flat.
Predicting Jesus would be betrayed for 30 peices of silver? What evidence do you have that he even fulfilled it? If the answer is just: "The anonymous writer of the book of Matthew says it happened." then what the heck are we even wasting our time talking about this for?
Edit: Fingers. COLD, can't type. . .
To repost Mr. Falcon
To quote what Hitchens said to Hannity: "You strike me as someone who has read absolutely none of the arguments against your case."
Alright Perry, here is my challenge to you. Take that first post of yours, and one by one answer every question from the standpoint of an atheist, answer it again from the standpoint of a liberal christian that doesn't take the bible as being the divine word of god but a set of myths man wrote to try to understand the divine, and then answer it one more time from the perspective of any eastern style religion such as Hinduism, or Buddhism.
You ask these questions as if they are tough "gotcha" questions that everyone with a view different from your stumbles and fumbles and can't come up with an answer to, when the reality is answers to most of those have been around for hundreds or even thousands of years. What you need to do is think about those answers. If you don't know those answers then you need to find them. Otherwise you are just willfully ignorant, and there are few things worse in life than being willfully ignorant.
My challenge above, I mean as a serious one. Repost your post, and respond to your own questions. Do so earnestly, not in some condoscending and snide way, but an earnest way. To be able to perform genuine analysis on something is to be able to look at it honestly from perspectives other than you own. Can you analyze your own questions? Or do you even want to?
Repost your first post again, and one by one answer your own questions from a different perspective, and do so as if you were trying to convince us that the answers given are correct or plausible. If you can't do this, then you do not deserve to have this discussion with anyone here.
Actually, people have created a brain that works much like ours, even better in some aspect. Have we not created computers? Which, by the way, are better and better. Life can create life and I daresay intelligent life will soon create artificial intelligent life: a supercomputer which will gain self-counciousness and send terminators from the future to kill Jesus.
How do you account for the odds (1 in 10 to the 157th power) that even just 48 (of 300) Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled in Jesus Christ?
New Testament Fiction used Old Testament Fiction as their source documents.
If Jesus' resurrection was faked, why would twelve intelligent men (Jesus' disciples) have died for what they knew to be a lie?
As has been pointed out, suicide bombers do the same. "Praise Allah" - BOOM!
What do you say about the hundreds of scholarly books that carefully document the veracity and reliability of the Bible?
What about the thousands of scholarly books that use the Bible to point out its gaping flaws?
Have you ever considered the fact that Christianity is the only religion whose leader is said to have risen from the dead?
Sorry dude, but this is common in numerous religions.
Why don't non-believers refer to Jesus as the late Jesus Christ?
Why, is he late or something? I usually call him Jesus Fucking Christ, when I talk about the mythological figure... just like Santa Fucking Claus.
How can something as small as a brain understand extremely complicated aspects of the universe, even though it is (supposedly) just a bunch of chemical reactions and electrical signals? But at the same time, this brain can’t create another brain like itself, so how can nature, that has no brain, create a brain?
Why can't this brain even create a simple living twig?
Why is the simple cell likened to the complexity of large functioning city by experts?
Respectfully, Perry, these questions betray a blind spot in your thinking. No, our still evolving brains are not smart enough to create its equal, but that's not surprising. The watch is not as complicated as the watchmaker, the pot as the potter, the house as the builder. It requires a more complex thing to create a complex thing. Agreed. How complex, then, must be the creator of the Universe? It follows that if something as complex as the Universe could not have come into being without something even more complex to create it, then the creator must be very complex indeed. Your questions may be categorised under "The Argument from Complexity" which suffers from the problem of infinite regress and the arbitrary assignment of God as its terminator. Who or what created God? The assumption that God is immune to the regress you illustrate is, alas, entirely unwarranted.
Who or what created God?
God is a spirit.
Can spirit be created?
God is a spirit.
Can spirit be created?
This is special pleading. Saying that god doesn't require an intelligent creator to exist is admitting that the argument fom complexity is flawed, since you are positing a complex thing which does not require an intelligent creator.
Also according to your theology, if angels are spirits, and they were created by god, then the answer is: Yes, spirits can be created.
God is a spirit. Can spirit be created?
Too damn right it can....
