Re: Evidence of God

stoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> On 29 Nov 2003 15:19:07 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Crowley),
> Message ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> alt.atheism;
> 
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joy from Middle Tennessee State University) wrote in message 
> >news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Crowley) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >> > > > > Hoi!  I resent that!  I'm a Christian, and my brain has
> >> > > > > only half shut down.  And even that is due to age.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Then you need to pay attention to those of us that are using
> >> > > > 3/4ths of their brain. You know, all we can do is laugh at
> >> > > > people that claim that 98% of bible prophecies have come true.
> >> > > 
> >> > > ===>Don't exaggerate.
> >> > > It was only 92%!
> >> > > Actually, the correct figure is 91.5768%,
> >> > > but believers are authorized to round up. -- L.
> >> > 
> >> > In my infallible Christian style, I will make a prophetic utterance.
> >> > 
> >> > I bet you can't resist replying to this prophecy.
> >> > 
> >> > Bob Crowley.
> >> Can you tell me where I can find a list of those bible prophecies that
> >> have come true? Also, does anyone know how many have not come true,
> >> and where they might be listed? I think this is an important issue
> >> when it comes to believing and having faith.
> >
> >I don't know of any books that detail the prophecies one by one and
> >then point out their realisation.  To be honest I'm not very
> >interested for the reason that we don't know for certain when the OT
> >prophetic books were written.  In other words if a book was written
> >after the event it predicted, then it is a bit hypocritical to claim
> >it "predicted" the event.  Yet the prophet in question, who almost
> >certainly didn't write the book itself (with the odd exception eg.
> >Isaiah), may well have predicted a certain event.  The trouble is that
> >we cannot prove it.
> >
> >The best all round book I know on this general topic of evidence for
> >Biblical references is Josh McDowell's "Evidence that demands a
> >verdict - Volume 1".  There is a Volume II, but it mainly deals with
> >"Biblical Criticism".  I think you would probably find it a bit
> >boring, unless you are inclined that way.
> >
> >However I would highly recommend Volume 1 of "EVidence that demands a
> >verdict".  It is straight forward, and backs up its claims with cross
> >references where they are available.
> 
> Quite a few people in aa have read McDowell's "work" and have indicated
> it's nothing but rubbish.
> 
> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/index.shtml
> 
> Mr. Lowder has analyzed the book and his findings are at the above link.
> 
> Whoops, there's a second book entitled:
> The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, 
> 
> It's review is below:
> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/newetdav.html
> 
> >Bob Crowley.
> 
>          
> 
>    
>              Stoney
> "Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
>                and
>           SCAMPERMEISTER!"
> 
> When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
> When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
> When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
> /end humour alert
> 
> alt.atheism military veteran #11
> {so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}


#################################
Stoney:
reference to Lowder's critique of McDowell:
I read the introduction and Chapter 1:  Farrell Till's critique of
McDowell.

     I am not a Biblical scholar so I can't really comment on Till's
extensive quote from the bible-other than to comment that, his point
that there was more than one prophet prophesying--and they prophesied
in opposition to each other-is neither new nor very important.  What's
Till's point?  Biblical scholars already know this.  This factoid has
nothing to do with the uniqueness of the Bible.
     However, I will comment on his thought process using the
following  paragraph from Chapter 1:  "Much of what McDowell sees as
biblical "uniqueness" is actually the result of political and social
chance and circumstance. Christianity happened to take root and thrive
in a geographical area that became more technologically advanced than
other parts of the world, and it also enjoyed favored status from
governmental institutions that suppressed opposition to it."

     What are we to make of this?  Other than that, Till is a believer
in the "Chance" method of evolution.  Evolutionists now agree that it
wasn't, as originally thought, strictly "Survival of the fittest", but
the chance survival of members of species with particular propitious
physical attributes-like a slightly larger brain.  Also, Evolution is
not a continuum, as was also originally thought, but it works in
spurts with large, dry spells, between growth spurts. The world is,
apparently, in a dry spell at the present moment.
     Anyway, if Till is right, geographical areas also evolve and
become technologically advanced. Apparently Till believes that, if the
wind and rain blow and wash against mountains long enough they will
eventually carve out an automobile--and not just sand.  It's like the
idea that a gadzillion monkeys, playing on typewriter keys, will
eventually write "King Lear", only with geographical areas.
     According to Till then, the people who lived in the area were
just along for the ride.  Those Europeans didn't have a culture that
welcomed technology and change.  How could they welcome technology and
change?  They were Christians, and, you know, their rulers forced
everyone to be Christian.
     Everybody knows that the culture created  by Christianity had
nothing to do with the supremacy of Western European concepts of
civilization. In fact, according to Till, the Christian culture of
Western Europe was contrary to Western European culture and
technological advances.
     Yeah, right!!!  So much for Farrell Till!  However, I do intend
to read Chapter 2.  I'm sure there must be great insights to be had
there.