William Lane Craig gets something right

Let it never be said I can’t find something nice to say about anybody. Sort of. From William Lane Craig’s book On Guard, which I bought on Kindle awhile ago but only recently started reading:

A person who has been raised in a culture that is sympathetic to the Christian faith will be open to the gospel in a way that a person brought up in a secular culture will not. For a person who is thoroughly secularized, you may as well tell him to believe in fairies or leprechauns as in Jesus Christ! That’s how absurd the message of Christ will seem to him.

To see the influence of a culture on your own thinking, imagine what you would think if a Hindu devotee of the Hare Krishna movement, with his shaved head and saffron robe, approached you at the airport or shopping mall, offering you a flower and inviting you to become a follower of Krishna. Such an invitation would likely strike you as bizarre, freakish, maybe even a bit funny. But think how differently someone in Delhi, India, would react if he were approached by such a person! Having been raised in a Hindu culture, he might take such an invitation very seriously.

  • John Alexander Harman

    Amazing how he can see it, but not get it.

    • GubbaBumpkin

      Hey, it’s not his fault he happened to be born into the one true religion.

    • BronzeDog

      Agreed. The quote sounds like he’s patting himself on the back for being a member of the “normal” tribe instead of a “silly” one, when he should focus on developing a convincing argument for his case. It also sounds like he’s resigned into accepting walls instead of seeking to knock them down. I think it goes into a classic problem of apologetics: The field exists to quell doubts in the tribe, not to convince outsiders.

      For a little more amateur internet psychobabble, the title “On Guard” sounds particularly defensive.

      • Sofia

        I really think this quote and the point William Lane Craig is trying to make is infinitely better understood if you actually read the book. I think this would answer some of your questions or doubts because in the beginning he actually explains the purpose of apologetics. He also explains, “- apologetics comes from the greek word apologia, which means a defense, as in a court of law. Christian apologetics involves making a case for the truth of the Christian faith.” I hope this helped you, I recommend reading the book, it’s very good.

  • Havok

    Much the same statement appears in “Reasonable faith”:

    “A person raised in a cultural milieu in which Christianity is still seen as an intellectually viable option will display an openness to the gospel which a person who is secularized will not. For the secular person you may as well tell him to believe in fairies or leprechauns as in Jesus Christ!”

  • BobaFuct

    The Cognitive Dissonance is strong with this one…

  • Tova Rischi

    Sorry, this is only tangentially related. But I was watching a debate recently, Specifically this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8MzPmkNsgU&list=PLWPVWmmzyayzQkA_JpU1VtBOBdce80MKz (sorry if the youtube doesn’t work, copy and paste seems to have suddenly decided it wants to be a drag command for me).

    In it, the late Hitchens debates Craig over the existence of a god. And while personally I think Hitchens did a terrible job I couldn’t help but notice Craig’s double standards (“I can argue from adverse consequences, you can’t”), dishonesty (parroting mutually contradicting arguments and logical leaps as it fits him, with no loyalty to coherence), and outright misconceptions (big bang as a beginning and not as the rapid expanse of space-time postdating a singularity and entropic and quantum implications separating the forces from space time and gravity from the other fundamental forces). Though despite all of that, I heard an argument I’ve heard from the man time and time again. And I’d just like to ask if my counterargument has been attempted before, if there’s a name or rebuttal to it.

    Without further ado:

    Argument from Sentient Plants

    To the Epicurean paradox it is often claimed that a world without suffering is illogical, in the same way a square circle is. Now this idea itself is a claim that there are impossible things by definition, simply because they’re meaningless. Nevermind the fact that a God notorious for producing miracles, that can violate physical and logical laws as their designer, ought to have the simple ability to preform just another miracle and violate logic the same as anything else. Ah, but even so, the way the argument is made, it seems that, in order to prove to him that his god, if it exists, must not be entirely omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, one simply has to conceive of a universe without the suffering that humans feel but with their love and with their free will. The other rejections unnecessary. So I present the argument from sentient plants.

    Let there be a cosmos; although I do not believe it necessary, for simplicity’s sake let it begin and evolve similarly as ours, up to the beginning of life as we know it.

    So around a good sun is a well-tilled planet. The planet has very stable, temperate weather owing to low eccentricity and good atmosphere.

    On this planet life begins, from the hand of God.

    The life on this planet is vegetative. It holds in place, passively accepting sunlight which provides all the energy it needs to grow. There are no other life forms. Because of this, there is no need for physical pain. It has nothing to avoid, it has nothing to snatch. But physical pleasure can be achieved, if simply through basking in the sun.

    Each individual is supported by a root system. This root system intertwines and wraps into the systems of others; through this and chemical secretions the plant is able to communicate with all other members of it’s community. Thus like humans, it is made to interact. Because of the light of the sun and the rich atmosphere, the plants are able to achieve and sustain the energy level required of sentience.

    Some of the plants receive revelation. They learn from the deity that they can feel a much stronger, sublime feeling, if they choose to make the sacrifice of 1/6th of the day’s sunlight, that is to turn their leaves away from the sun for a sixth of their day, and to sing Allah-u Akbar or SDG in their planty language.

    The plants now have a religion with which to align themselves. Some deride the prophets for sacrificing their pleasure for seeming nothing; others choose to believe by faith. Now there is politics. Now there is a force with which to align themselves. Now in this war of ideas, god-denying and god-affirming, the plants can learn to love – both their families who they are placed by and with the like-minded. Forgiveness enters their domain, with the simple reestablishment of communication between plants that do not agree on the matter of light sacrifice.

    Even so, certain aspects of philosophy and art could have entered their community far before hand – such as what angle is best for receiving light, or how to entertain or appreciate entertainment, how to deal with defective thought or superior thought, etc.

    No where is physical pain necessary. Even if you posit death for these plants it does not have to be painful in any sense but the psychic (spiritual). That doesn’t mean that they are without pathos; that doesn’t mean that they are without anything good from the fallacious assumption that good can only exist without evil; there is evil and suffering for these plants such as unbeauty, starvation and suffering in the name of zealous religion, and perhaps if one allows for death the emotional responses from death. It’s merely in the realm of thought, not in the realm of the body. Thus these plants experience both a human level of consciousness and a lesser degree of suffering and evil.

    Now because it has been conceived, it means that the claim “a world with less suffering is meaningless” is false. Possibility is irrelevant, though I think it very well may be. It’s just that Craig likes to reply – that this response replies – that this statement is unintelligible. But it isn’t; if the empiricism lack the rationality doesn’t. Thus Craig’s most typical reply is invalid.

    And to the argument that these plants are not human enough because they are not formed in God’s image, it can be assured that Craig does not take this literally, as he clearly states in his works on numerous occasions. Because the plants feel and the plants can celebrate and the plants can make choices, they fit the way he consistently responds to questions like, “why does the body have obvious imperfect, inefficient, and redundant design?”.

    So that would push him back into the position of considering the epicurean paradox at face value, without his extraneous theistic baggage.

    Thanks for reading and considering this.

  • Nemo

    Wait, what?! A Christian actually acknowledged this fact? Unthinkable! I thought fundamentalists were supposed to insist that they believe because the Holy Spirit guides them, and their upbringing has nothing to do with it!

  • http://quinesqueue.blogspot.com/ Q. Quine

    I read that book, and it was just awful. WLC has made his career on rhetorical tricks and ignoring people who call out his logical errors. He will keep doing so, and anyone who goes to ‘debate’ him has to realize that, up front. I recently reviewed the “discussions” WLC had with Lawrence Krauss in Australia. Part 1 of those is here.

  • Joseph O Polanco

    WLC is only half right. Here’s but one example how:

    “It [] dawned on me that I had accepted evolution without really questioning it. For example, I had assumed that evolution was well supported by the fossil record. But it is not. Indeed, the more I examined evolution, the more I became convinced that the theory is more bluster than fact.

    Then I thought about my work with robots. Whose designs was I imitating? I could never design a robot capable of catching a ball as we can. A robot can be programmed to catch a ball, but only in precisely controlled conditions. It cannot do so in circumstances for which it has not been programmed. Our ability to learn is vastly superior to that of a machine—and mere machines have makers! This fact is just one of many that led me to conclude that we must have had a Designer.

    I became deeply interested in the many prophecies, or predictions, in the Bible. My study of those convinced me that the Bible really is from God. In 1992, Barbara and I were baptized as Jehovah’s Witnesses.” -Professor Massimo Tistarelli, former atheist (http://bit.ly/15xtINp) (Bracket mine.)

    • baal

      Oh look. It’s Joseph O Polanco. You’ve been banned from more than a few blogs on Patheos and Facebook for willful bad behavior including RL threats to have me investigated by the FBI (since I’m “baal” and we are all our nyms?) or taken to Guantanamo. You’ve also admitted that you only have ill intent and mean to disrupt atheist blogs for points with god or to fulfill some jehova’s witness evangelizing requirement without getting dressed in the morning.

      • Joseph O Polanco

        Can I help it if militant atheists, like you, don’t like me?

    • wakeupkeo

      Ok dude, I don’t know you and I’m not militant but I’ll try.

      Indeed, the more I examined evolution, the more I became convinced that the theory is more bluster than fact.

      That is not an argument, that is a conclusion.

      Our ability to learn is vastly superior to that of a machine—and mere machines have makers!

      That is a theory without support.

      This fact is just one of many that led me to conclude that we must have had a Designer.

      This is still a conclusion based on a stated supposed fact – not an actual fact itself.

      After that, you’re on your own and your statements should be viewed as independent opinion, nothing more. What you got JWizzle?

      • Maxximiliann

        If exceptional intellect is required to merely duplicate designs and systems present in nature ( Biomimetics ) then much more the original being replicated. Creation is thus proof of a Creator.

        • wakeupkeo

          Through reproduction, design duplication and system duplication are carried out without intellect at all. No creator is needed, just time. If a creator is present, then that creator exhausts all options for each “decision” the creator makes. That doesn’t sound like design to me.

          Free will is in some ways creation of ideas by you without the creator (God). Creation is thus NOT necessarily proof of a creator.

          • Maxximiliann

            But who started the process to begin with? IOW, why is there anything at all instead of just nothing?

          • wakeupkeo

            Why does there have to be a why? Just because you can ask a question doesn’t mean there is an answer by default.

            Why is there anything instead of nothing? Even with the God hypothesis, we have no answer. The why question can be applied like a curious child. Why did God Create us? Why does he want our love? Why does God exist? What caused God? If you can imagine a timeless God, why can you not imagine a timeless universe. Just because science found the big bang does not mean the quest for knowledge is over. It may be possible to see beyond the big bang thanks to the latest discoveries. Just because we see the effect of the big bang, we should not expect that we know causal reasons that the big bang happened, it is very possible there was another universe before us.

            Think of the implications if there ALWAYS MUST be a creator? That would mean you have no free will, because EVERYTHING is causal. That would mean God falsely gave you the impression of free will but you are really just a robot with no control of your own. But you do make your own decisions, you spawn motivations and ideas out of nothing!

          • Maxximiliann

            “If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.” -C.S. Lewis

          • wakeupkeo

            Animals in the darkest depths of the ocean have anatomy that experiences reality without reference to light, certainly no eyes. To them, yes, Dark has no meaning because it is all they know, CS Lewis is correct in this proposition. But us land dwellers know otherwise.

            Semantics aside, nice sentiment but purely a philosophical opinion made from a bias viewpoint. There is no way to know that is right or prove it unless one is omniscient. Humans can hypothesize but not test this theory.

          • Maxximiliann

            The same applies to your sentiment. It is an untestable assumption.

          • wakeupkeo

            You are the one making the outrageous claim, my sentiment is not the one that needs testing.

          • Maxximiliann

            And what outrageous claim is that? My appeal to a posterioi causality?

          • wakeupkeo

            No, your statement that Creation is thus proof of a Creator.

          • Maxximiliann

            Seriously? What’s so outrageous about that?

          • wakeupkeo

            Because complexity does not imply design, let alone PROVE it. Further into the Carroll Craig debate he addresses the teleological explanation very well. Did you check it out? It is a long one but a good one! I think you would like it!

          • Maxximiliann

            Neither pattern nor order are of particular concern . It’s the arrangements of numerous interrelated constituent parts or elements in a string of steps adhered to in a consistent clear-cut order to effectuate a task , purpose , goal or operation ( ordered complexity ) which always betrays the existence of an intelligent mind . It’s what makes a specific signal, for instance, instantly recognizable from random white noise . (That’s why SETI scours the universe for radio signals.)

            So you see, trying to use “poof” ( amazing chance )% to explain the outrageously tiny compound probabilities of standalone events giving us a life sustaining universe is simply naked , illogical sophism .

            %“It is our contention that if ‘random’ [chance] is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws, physical, chemical and biological.” -“Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory”, Dr. Murray Eden, MIT

            “There is no chance (<10-1000) to see [evolution based on mutation and natural selection] appear spontaneously and, if it did, even less for it to remain. Thus, to conclude, we believe there is a considerable gap in the Neo-Darwinian Theory of evolution, and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged within the current conception of biology.” -“Algorithms and the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution,” Marcel P. Schutzenberger, University of Paris (Bracket mine.)

            This multiplicity of probabilities atop probabilities atop probabilities atop probabilities properly illustrates the staggering probability of our universe winding up with the optimum blend and ratios of life permitting constants by pure chance .

            Your reasoning makes it acceptable for someone who stumbles upon a copy of “Hamlet” to believe it is really the product of an infinite group of monkeys in an infinite assortment of universes banging away duplicates of texts at an infinite group of typewriters generated by yet another infinite group of monkeys in some other group of infinite universes banging away at their infinite bunch of typewriters rather than just simply concluding “Shakespeare .”

            If you hear hoof beats , why think unicorns ?

          • wakeupkeo

            Great theories you quoted, with equally great counter theories available. I appreciate the long comment, I have learned a lot of old theories. New data is a great thing.

            But lets get macro- your rebuttal basically says the probabilities are too small. But compared to what? Compared to the probablilities of a personal intervening God, it doesn’t seem so improbable. And my models can evolve as more data is gained. Nothing is final for me, as the facts change, I change my mind. Your position sound much more like a unicorn to me.

          • Maxximiliann

            Picture a sweepstakes wherein billions upon billions of white-colored ping pong balls were combined along with one single black ball . Now imagine you’re told that an arbitrary drawing is going to be made , and if the ball is black , you will be permitted to live . However if the ball is white , then you definitely shall be executed . Observe that in this particular sweepstakes , any specific ball that comes down the chute is every bit as improbable as any other . Even so , it is actually extremely more likely that which ever ball rolls down the chute , it’s going to be white as opposed to black . That is the comparison with the universe . Even when each and every particular ball is every bit as improbable , it is always overpoweringly even more probable that it will be a white ball and not a black ball .

            In a similar fashion , from every one of the universes that could exist , any one is equally impossible ; but it surely is extremely more probable that regardless of which one exists , it should be a life-prohibiting one, not a life-permitting universe . Which means that concerning the sweepstakes , if , to your great shock , the black colored ball comes down the chute and you are permitted to live , you ought to undoubtedly deduce that the game had been rigged . In case you still don’t appreciate the significance of this , then let’s sharpen the analogy and thus consider that the black colored ball needed to be selected five instances in a row if you want to live . That would not influence the probability greatly if the odds against picking out the black ball even single time were sufficiently great . Then again , I would say each and every one of us would certainly understand that if that takes place five times in a row , it’s only because the sweepstakes was rigged to enable you to live .

            In this proper analogy , we are not concerned with the reason why you obtained the distinct ball you did – every ball you get is every bit as astronomically impossible as the next . All that we have an interest in is the reason why you received a life-permitting ball and not a life-prohibiting ball . This is simply not sorted out by declaring , “Some ball was required to be present or selected , and so any ball is every bit as improbable as any other .” In precisely the same fashion , we are not focused on the reason why this specific universe exists . What we have an interest in is why a life-permitting universe exists . That dilemma is not resolved by pointing out that some universe must be present and every single universe is similarly improbable . We continue to require a justification for precisely why a universe with such finely tuned, life permitting constants is .

          • wakeupkeo

            OK, I’ll break this down.
            Are we only talking about one sweepstakes? As multiple universe theories are more and more supported by new data, your single sweepstakes analogy would lose some relevance.
            And your requirement for a life supporting universe is extremely elitist. You imply that this universe is the only one that can hold life. But you only mean life as we know it. We have no idea if other conditions would produce life in another way- just because one parameter changes does not mean nothing else would either. So only one black ball is quite an oversimplification, but ok. Lets humor it.

            And why if you landed on one possibility in a billion, would that mean a rigged system? Sure, people who don’t win the lottery will complain of the same thing, but as bad as those odds are, SOMEONE ALWAYS WINS. EACH AND EVERY TIME. If you develop a model with probabilities, you must accept those outcomes as they arise. You did put a black ball in.

            Again, five consecutive drawings in improbable only depending on the limit of drawings. If you have infinite drawings, for example, the probability of having 5 black balls in a row is 100%. Perspective is so crucial to the argument you lay out.

            If you only have an interest in YOUR ball and not the outcome of the whole experiment, then you do not see all the data. That is the same as saying that the reality in which you win the lottery it the only one you should be concerned with.

            I do not have an interest in why this life permitting universe exists as you do. I am open to the fact that someone may have figured out how to live with a white ball.

            Let me ask you something. Do you think this is the first and only universe God ever had or ever will create?

          • Maxximiliann

            Even if veridical, your metaphysically extravagant Anthropic Philosophy, that is, “if the Universe contains an exhaustively random and infinite number of universes, then anything that can occur with non-vanishing probability will occur somewhere,” does nothing to answer the question why there is anything instead of just nothing. It just punts it further down the line.

            The existence of this supposed multiverse still cries out for an objective explanation.

            To borrow from an illustration by Philosopher Richard Taylor, “Imagine you are walking through the woods on a hike and you come across a translucent ball lying on the forest floor. You would naturally wonder where that ball came from – what is the explanation of its existence? If your hiking buddy said to you, “Don’t worry about it – it just exists, inexplicably!,” you would think either that he was crazy or that he wanted you to keep on moving. But you wouldn’t take seriously the idea that this ball just exists without any explanation of its existence.

            Now suppose that the ball, instead of being the size of a basketball, were the size of an automobile. Merely increasing the size of the ball would not do anything to remove or satisfy the demand for an explanation of its existence, would it? Suppose it were the size of a house? Same problem! Suppose it were the size of a planet or a galaxy? Same problem! Suppose it were the size of the entire universe? Same problem! Merely increasing the size of the object does not do anything to remove or satisfy the demand for an explanation of its existence. And so I think it is very plausible to think that everything that exists has an explanation of why it exists.” (http://bit.ly/Pm4s92)

            “If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.” -C.S. Lewis

            That is to say, when compared to the metaphysically extravagant Anthropic Philosophy, Theism is by far much more modest.

          • wakeupkeo

            Just for the record, I have not stated my personal philosophy, just pointing out exceptions to some of your statements of absolutes. I am just hoping you can widen your perspective to some views you seem to see as black and white.

            True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing.

            Socrates (469 BC – 399 BC)

            The only one crying out for objective explanation here is you and some of humanity. Others can accept that right now we don’t know everything but that doesn’t mean we should speculate, and (heres the key) stop exploring. I think your ball quote is not accurate for at least me, because I am very curious so I would always investigate that ball.

            Again with the dark quote, that fails to understand the possibility of a dark life experience. Animals at the deepest depths of the ocean dark has no meaning.

            I think your modest claim is only your opinion, as from my perspective, the chances of the reason for this universe doing it all just for us seems the most unlikely of all. We choose to anthropomorphize all of existence because we feel it cries out for reason. You have to believe God knows all but chooses not to and built this whole wasteful universe just for us? I only have to believe that I don’t know everything. Which is more modest?

          • Maxximiliann

            Thing is Science is neither omniscient nor infallible. More importantly, while it may be able to explain how things work, it can never tell us why things are the way they are. For instance, Science can never tell us why there is anything rather than nothing at all.

          • wakeupkeo

            By why ask the why? Why not imagine a world without meaning or a God? To me that is more plausible.

          • Maxximiliann

            Why not?

          • wakeupkeo

            Because I don’t invest in speculation.

          • Maxximiliann

            “A mind is like a parachute. It only works when it’s open.” -Frank Zappa

          • wakeupkeo

            Ha ha definitely not the same thing but great quote! Love the humor!

          • Maxximiliann

            Sure it is! “Why” is the most beautiful and amazing question a human being can ask. It’s what fuels our curiosity; it’s pursuit what satisfies our ravenous hunger for knowledge and understanding. It’s what separates us from animals :)

          • wakeupkeo

            Your thoughts on “Why” are your opinion, but you do not speak for me. And (I mean this in the nicest possible way) I feel bad if that is all you feel makes you uniquely human.

            But I cannot debate you on art, on opinion. We must agree to disagree on the importance of the question “Why.”

          • Maxximiliann

            Ok.

          • Maxximiliann

            As per the Bible teaches, God Almighty lovingly created us because he wanted to share the gift of life with other sentient beings.

          • wakeupkeo

            but why?

          • Maxximiliann

            Because Jehovah is a happy and overwhelmingly generous God. After all, “There is more happiness in giving than there is in receiving.” (Acts 20:35; 1 Timothy 1:11)

          • wakeupkeo

            No fair supporting your argument with scripture, that is only opinion. I don’t think Cain thought God was happy and overwhelmingly generous… nor the children during the flood.

          • Maxximiliann

            What makes you say that?

          • wakeupkeo

            Because people born before Jesus were saved only by heritage. And there had to be some innocent children that were killed in the flood, God would have been cruel and indifferent in their perspective.

          • Maxximiliann

            Prove it.

          • wakeupkeo

            The burden of proof for an actual God, let alone a generous happy one, is on you my friend. Scripture aside, anything beyond stories. (Hamlet wink wink)

          • Maxximiliann

            You still need to prove your claim, to wit, “Because people born before Jesus were saved only by heritage. And there had to be some innocent children that were killed in the flood, God would have been cruel and indifferent in their perspective.”

          • Maxximiliann

            The premise that all matter and energy began to exist 13.70 billion years ago is not a religious declaration nor a theological one. You can find this statement in any contemporary textbook on astrophysics or cosmology. And it is supported by the vast majority of cosmologists today.

            The Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem, for instance, proves that any universe, that has, on average, a rate of expansion greater than one ** must ** have a ** finite beginning **. I’m not making this up. Read the paper in full or watch Vilenkin himself invalidate and impugn beginningless universe models like Eternal Inflation, Cyclic Evolution and Static Seed/Emergent Universe on youtube.

            As such, Vilenkin had this to say regarding the beginning of the universe, “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. *** There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning ***. (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176) (Emphasis mine.)

            As Theoretical Physicist and Cosmologist Stephen Hawking put it, “the final nail in the coffin of the Steady State theory came with the discovery of the microwave background radiation, in 1965.”

            Emphatically, then, your fervent belief that the universe is infinitely old, beginningless, or eternal has no basis in any respected mainstream scientific theories of the universe. It’s just more atheistic amphigory and wishful thinking.

            This creates the necessity for a first uncaused-cause. After all, something cannot come from nothing.

            Therefore:

            ( 1 ) Whatsoever begins to exist has a cause .

            ( 2 ) The space-time universe began to exist 13 .70 billion years ago .

            ( 3 ) Thus , the space-time universe has a cause .

            ( 4 ) The cause of the universe is a transcendent , beginningless , spaceless , immaterial , timeless , unchanging , omnipotent good personal being .

            ( 5 ) A transcendent , beginningless , spaceless , immaterial , timeless , unchanging , omnipotent good personal being is the definition of God Almighty.

            ( 6 ) Hence , God Almighty caused the universe to exist 13 .70 billion years ago .

          • wakeupkeo

            Your premisis have already been proven wrong with models in science since the time the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem was concieved. (1) Well all that is based on your assumption that science thinks there couldn’t possibly be anything before the big bang. But that is an incorrect perspective. The premise is that all matter in this timeline reality, not all that there is absolutely. The idea of infinite multiple universes shows that there are many model that display the possibility that time does have an infinite regress, just not exactly like ours. And scientists do not use the word transcendent to describe causal effects.

            WLC just did a debate where that exact theorum was debunked quite well. Just listen to his opening rebuttal to hear how your argument is invalid. He says it much better than i ever could. The link will jump right to the end of WLC opening argument and Carroll is about to speak.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07QUPuZg05I&feature=share&list=FLRhV1rWIpm_pU19bBm_2RXw&index=3

          • Maxximiliann

            Your link took me to the beginning of the debate. Can you provide me with a time stamp?

          • wakeupkeo

            About 44 minutes he starts to address the … ah my bad, they discuss the Kalam cosmological argument, which has similarities but is not the same argument. Good stuff in the video but not the same thing, my mistake.

            He does address infinite time models and I question the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem has “proven” anything:

            The 2003 Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper shows that “almost all” inflationary models of the universe (as opposed to Dr. Craig’s “any universe”) will reach a boundary in the past – meaning our universe probably doesn’t exist infinitely into the past.

            This theorem doesn’t rule out Stephen Hawking’s no-boundary proposal which states that time may be finite without any real boundary (just like a sphere is finite in surface area while it has no “beginning”). Nothing in the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper suggests a beginning from “absolute nothingness” (as Craig often claims). In fact, the opposite is true. The authors write “What can lie beyond the boundary? Several possibilities have been discussed, one being that the boundary of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of the Universe in a quantum nucleation event.”

            Vilenkin himself writes:

            Theologians have often welcomed any evidence for the beginning of the universe, regarding it as evidence for the existence of God … So what do we make of a proof that the beginning is unavoidable? Is it a proof of the existence of God? This view would be far too simplistic. Anyone who attempts to understand the origin of the universe should be prepared to address its logical paradoxes. In this regard, the theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian over the scientist.

          • Maxximiliann

            The only alternative, then, is to believe the universe came from nothing by nothing for nothing … which is untenable.

          • wakeupkeo

            Why is it any more untenable than some timeless entity that cares where my penis goes?

          • Maxximiliann

            Do you really find it so odd that a loving parent would be concerned with his creations’ well-being?

          • wakeupkeo

            Well I do when he only loves some of his creations and condemns the rest. He is the terrible parent who spoils his favorite and keeps having children in hopes of more favorites, while he punishes the majority of the rest.

            A loving parent SHOULD not have children that they know will have a terrible painful existence. Every life God creates that he knows will not be a believer, he creates for an eternity of pain. Not cool. Why is one life worth more than another?

          • Guest

            Take Daniel 9 :24-27 wherein it is prophesied that Jerusalem would be rebuilt and Messiah would appear and thereafter be murdered ; afterwards the city itself along with its holy place would certainly be destroyed. It reads as follows -

            24 “Seventy weeks of years are decreed concerning your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.

            25 Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.

            26 And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off, and shall have nothing; and the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war; desolations are decreed.

            27 And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week; and for half of the week he shall cause sacrifice and offering to cease; and upon the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.”

            With respect to the beginning of the prophetic seventy weeks , Nehemiah was given authorization by King Artaxerxes of Persia , in the twentieth year of his rule , in the month of Nisan , to reconstruct the walls along with the city of Jerusalem . ( Nehemiah 2 :1 , 5 , 7 , 8 ) In his calculations of the reign of Artaxerxes , Nehemiah evidently made use of a calendar year that commenced with the month Tishri ( September-October ) , as does the Jews’ present civil calendar , and then concluded with the month Elul ( August-September ) as its 12th and final month .

            To uncover the period corresponding to the twentieth annum of Artaxerxes , we must go back to the conclusion of the reign of his father and forerunner Xerxes , who perished in the latter part of 475 B .C .E . Artaxerxes’ accession year accordingly initiated in 475 B .C .E . , and his very first regnal annum is counted from 474 B .C .E . , as further historical facts tell us . Thus, the twentieth annum of Artaxerxes’ rulership would correspond to 455 B .C .E .

            The prediction states there would be sixty nine weeks of years “from the going forth of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Leader .” ( Daniel 9 :25 ) Secular history , in conjunction with the Holy Bible , presents proof that Jesus visited John and was then baptized by him , thus becoming the Anointed One , Messiah the Leader , at the start of fall of 29 C .E . Computing back from this point in the historical past , we are able to determine that the sixty nine weeks of years commenced in 455 B .C .E . In that year the pivotal “going forth of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem” occurred .

            What’s so extraordinary about all of this is the fact that Daniel dates the outset of his book as “the third year of the kingship of Jehoiakim the king of Judah .” This is to say, 618 B .C .E . , Jehoiakim’s third year as tributary king to Nebuchadnezzar . And so , hundreds of years well in advance, Daniel’s prophecy pinpointed the precise year of the Messiah’s coming . Almost certainly the Jews in the first century C .E . had made such computations based on Daniel’s prediction and so were watchful for Messiah’s appearance . The Holy Bible declares : “Now as the people were in expectation and all were reasoning in their hearts about John : ‘May he perhaps be the Christ ?’” ( Luke 3 :15 ) Whilst these were anticipating the Messiah , they, needless to say, were not able to calculate the specific month , week , or day of his advent . This is why , they puzzled over whether or not John was in fact the Christ .

            Gabriel additionally informed Daniel : “After the sixty-two weeks Messiah will be cut off , with nothing for himself .” ( Daniel 9 :26 ) It was soon after the conclusion of the ‘seven plus sixty-two weeks ,’ basically three and a half years later , that Christ was cut off in death on a torture stake , sacrificing everything he was , as a ransom for humanity . ( Isaiah 53 :8 ) Facts tells us that the Jesus invested the initial half of the “week” in the ministry . At one time , in all probability in the autumn of 32 C .E . , he presented an illustration wherein Jewish state was portrayed as a fig tree ( cf. Matthew 17 :15-20 ; 21 :18 , 19 , 43 ) that had borne absolutely no fruitage for “three years .” The vignaiolo told the proprietor of the vineyard : “Master , let it alone also this year , until I dig around it and put on manure ; and if then it produces fruit in the future , well and good ; but if not , you shall cut it down .” ( Luke 13 :6-9 ) He might well have referred to the duration of his very own ministry to that indifferent country , which ministry had persisted by this time for at least three years and was to carry on into a fourth year .

            It was subsequently after the 70 “weeks ,” but nevertheless as an immediate consequence of the Jews’ rejection of Christ in the course of the 70th “week ,” that the incidents described in the latter portions of Daniel 9 :26 and 27 were brought to fruition . History documents that Titus the son of Emperor Vespasian of Rome was the commander of the Roman armies that besieged Jerusalem . Like raging floodwaters, these legions stormed Jerusalem devastating the metropolis along with its holy place, the temple. The presence of these pagan legions in such a sacred place indeed made them a “disgusting thing .” ( Matthew 24 :15 ) Every single one of the Israelite’s endeavors leading up to Jerusalem’s waterloo to calm the circumstances were ineffective simply because God Almighty’s decree was : “What is decided upon is desolations ,” and “until an extermination , the very thing decided upon will go pouring out also upon the one lying desolate .” (Daniel 9 :26 , 27)

            So , yet again , we see the accurate fulfillment of specific events prophesied hundreds and hundreds of years ahead of time . But just like all these you will find dozens upon dozens of prophecies held within the Holy Bible . As it’s unquestionably absurd for anyone to foresee with 100 % perfection what’s certain to occur from one hour to the next , there’s no two ways about it : Bible prophecies simply cannot be of natural origin .

            These are each the unmistakable manifestation of the transcendent wisdom of our Creator , Jehovah God .

          • Maxximiliann

            But he doesn’t know. If he did, how would we be free to choose to obey or disobey Him?

          • wakeupkeo

            Ah the one time where free will is ok. But if he doesn’t know something, is he really God? I do not describe God like that. Without knowledge of the future he is just a being progressing through time with the rest of us. If he knows the future and he knows you before you were born, how does he not know this?

          • Maxximiliann

            Just because God can know everything doesn’t mean he can’t use this ability in discreet measures. And why would he do that? Because he gave all his sentient creation free will which would be meaningless if he chose to know everything we would do before we did it.

            I invite you, then, to approach your dilemma from a more elevated and adequate concept of God Almighty.

          • wakeupkeo

            Because as shrapnel to his whim of wanting souls who choose him, he creates souls who HE KNOWS will forever suffer. Nobody gets to choose whether or not to play the game at all, we are FORCED to play.

          • Maxximiliann

            How does God Almighty force anyone to be good?

          • wakeupkeo

            How does a loving God create a world where not everyone will choose him? How does he not care that maybe for all the souls he gets to choose him, he knows he created more one soul that will forever suffer the existence God created for them, a suffering that will forever accompany his chosen souls, a shadow that will never end, when he could have avoided it?

          • Maxximiliann

            Simple, he creates sentient beings with freedom of the will.

          • wakeupkeo

            If you think that is an adequate answer, then I think I will rest. Thanks for the chat man. In spite of our different views, I respect you and enjoyed our chat.

          • Maxximiliann

            How is it not? Please elaborate.

          • Maxximiliann

            But he does care:

            ““As surely as I am alive,” declares the Sovereign Lord Jehovah, “I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that someone wicked changes his way and keeps living. Turn back, turn back from your bad ways, for why should you die?”

            ““‘And when I say to the wicked one: “You will surely die,” and he turns away from his sin and does what is just and righteous, [] and he walks in the statutes of life by not doing what is wrong, he will surely keep living. He will not die. None of the sins he committed will be held* against him. For doing what is just and righteous, he will surely keep living.’” -Ezekiel 33: 11, 14-16 (Bracket mine.)

            Why not accept his invitation, then, to be godly and live forever on Paradise Earth? http://bit.ly/18CngYk

          • wakeupkeo

            It doesn’t avoid the fact that he created a system that would condemn some souls he created to an eternity of existence without him which he does not recommend, in order to simpy gain glory for himself. If that is the Godly I need to be, then I don’t want it. He is not a God I respect. He forces love through fear in the quotes above.

          • Maxximiliann

            I don’t follow. ” For the wages sin pays is death (not eternal torment, torture or the like), but the gift God gives is everlasting life by Christ Jesus our Lord.” -Romans 6:23 (Parenthesis mine.)

          • wakeupkeo

            Just checking then, what do you believe happens when you die and do not receive everlasting life through Christ Jesus Our Lord? Heaven or ceasing to exist?

          • Maxximiliann

            The Bible teaches us that death is like sleep. We simply cease to exist:

            “For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing at
            all, nor do they have any more reward, because all memory of them is
            forgotten. Whatever your hand finds to do, do with all your might, for
            there is no work nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom in the Grave,
            where you are going.” -Ecclesiastes 9:5,10 (cf. John 11)

          • Maxximiliann

            I think the life of a good, godly person is worth so much more than that of an evil, ungodly monster, don’t you?

          • wakeupkeo

            That is like saying which of your children do you love more?

            God put us all into this world that he created, so he created evil ungodly monsters knowing that life will eternally suffer.

          • Maxximiliann

            “People ruin their lives by their own foolishness and then are angry at the LORD.” -Proverbs 19:3

            More often than not, the reason for man’s suffering … is man: http://bit.ly/11EyvgO

          • wakeupkeo

            I certainly did not say that, and lets not get into that whole other discussion. But here’s the point I am trying to make:

            God can do anything.
            God is omniscient.
            God could create anything, including followers.
            God wants followers that choose him.
            God can make followers that can choose him.
            God chooses to turn off his omniscience to get follower that choose him “the hard way”.
            God gets his followers and they live happily ever after.
            God also now has souls he created forever in unspeakable pain for eternity in order to get souls “the hard way”.

            Not cool God. That is ego. Doesn’t sound too happy if hes making all this pain to get the one thing he “can’t” make on his own, does it?

          • Maxximiliann

            To what “unspeakable pain for eternity” are you referring to?

          • wakeupkeo

            Hell of course.

            He may give you free will, but are you saying he didn’t know there would be a hell when he started all of this? Is was just another unexpected byproduct of free will?

            Nope, he knew it was a destination from the very start with the first souls when he created Eden and threatened Adam and Eve. He knew the byproduct of his egotistical endeavor would be eternal pain for someone.

          • Maxximiliann

            The Hellfire doctrine is a perverse Antichrist mendacity that defames God. As a God of justice and love he would never prescribe infinite punishment for a finite crime no matter how wicked: http://bit.ly/17fVMYm

          • wakeupkeo

            I am not describing hell itself, but whatever it is you believe is threatened by God for those not going to heaven.

            Do you not think it will be terrible? If I am wrong here and its like sleep, sign me up!

          • Maxximiliann

            Death is like sleep. We simply cease to exist:

            “For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing at all, nor do they have any more reward, because all memory of them is forgotten. Whatever your hand finds to do, do with all your might, for there is no work nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom in the Grave, where you are going.” -Ecclesiastes 9:5,10 (cf. John 11)

          • wakeupkeo

            Cool. If God is real, I hope you guys are the right ones. Then there’s no consequence for my skepticism.

            So if you don’t believe in hell, do you feel the need to “save” people or do you let people’s life experience steer them the right themselves? Seems like only ambitious people would choose the afterlife then.

          • Maxximiliann

            And those who don’t want to die :)

            I’m sincerely perplexed, however, by your position. Why wouldn’t you want to be a good person and continue enjoying life for all eternity? Why, instead, choose to die? Help me understand your thinking here.

          • wakeupkeo

            That definitely does not mean I want to stop being a good person. I think that is even more reason to be a good person. Why would any worldview prevent that? It shouldn’t.

            But I would rather enjoy this gift of life I have been given, without forsaking that gift by restricting my life now for an expectation of an even better, more perfect one next. That seems so greedy to me. This life is already so great and full of possibilities.

            Thanks Bud. Its been a fun and informative dialogue.

          • Maxximiliann

            My pleasure :)

          • adam

            Maybe if his parents had spend more time with god he would have matured pass the angry, psychopathic 5 year old mentality.

          • adam

            No that is not the only alternative.
            Straw man.
            If your god doesn’t need a beginning, then neither does the universe.

          • Maxximiliann

            Except that an infinite regress of causes does not have any basis in reality ; it can’t be turtles all the way down . ( http://bit. ly/1dq935A )

            More importantly, why should we doubt what our own senses tell us? And if there is a valid reason for doing so, how can we trust them to tell us anything accurate about reality?

          • wakeupkeo

            Whoa I missed a bunch of your replies and only answered the last sorry.

            Why CAN’T it be an infinite regress if you can imagine an infinite God?

          • Maxximiliann

            No worries.

            The universe is 13.70 billion years old. Therefore it is not past infinite but past finite. God never began to exist and is therefore timeless, not infinite. Infinity itself does not exist in reality. It is merely a conceptual construct like imaginary time or imaginary numbers.

          • wakeupkeo

            Scientifically, the universe is that age, yes. Yes, this universe is past finite. But that does not mean there cannot be anything that preceeded it outside of our spacetime. That is essentially what you call God, but I do not propose to know what was before the big bang.

            But you’re missing the concept. Maybe existence in some form or another, living or not, is as you say, timeless. The universe we live in is finite, but what you imagine as God creating this universe could be anything. It could be a collapsed universe that preceeded us, we could be simply a program simulation, there are many viable options, each equal if not more probable than the God Hypothesis. Science does not say with absolute certainty that there was nothing at all before the big bang, just not reality as we know it.

            Conceptual constructs are essentially what you call God.

          • Maxximiliann

            It’s not that you don’t know, you don’t want to know. Why do you refuse to follow the evidence where it takes you? Why do you behave as if God Almighty does not nor cannot exist without a single shred of evidence for such an outrageous position?

          • wakeupkeo

            You imply that you have evidence? Real evidence that can stand peer review? That can be repeated, duplicated, and is revealed to every person equally? Because science does that. The evidence you speak of points in my direction. The bible points you in yours. Do you really believe that in 2000 years will shady human nature that it is still inspired and never manipulated? And why are stories evidence to you, but not actual data that can be verified is not?

          • Maxximiliann

            Indirect evidence is frequently and reliably depended upon to ascertain the reality of the world we live in . As a case in point , it’s long been widely-used to show that our Sun generates power via nuclear fusion , hydrogen is present on it or that the our planet features an iron core . In like manner , creation as well as the reality that not a one of fulfilled Bible predictions has at any time been wrong constitutes unquestionable attestation for the reality of it’s composer , Jehovah God .

            This is, by far the most persuasive logical reason why millions upon millions of rational people today the world over accept the Bible as the Inspired Word of Jehovah God. Simply no other book – religious or not – comes with such an illustrious prominence. Considering the fact that it’s literally ** impossible ** for any person to foresee with complete precision what’s sure to occur from one hour to the next, there’s no two ways about it: Bible prophecies are not of natural origin. I kindly invite you to examine for yourself numerous examples of these accurately fulfilled prophecies: http://bit.ly/1d0Y82v

          • wakeupkeo

            Ah Jehovahs witness are you? Here’s my rebuttal link:
            http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Failed_biblical_prophecies

            Any example of apparent prophecy fulfillment that is presented can be explained, such as by its creative interpretation or being written after the event. Thus, although it is possible to identify parallels between Bible verses and subsequently occurring events, alleged prophecy fulfillment is not sufficient to compel unquestionable attestation for the reality of it’s supposed composer, Jehovah God.

          • Maxximiliann

            Take Daniel 9 :24-27 wherein it is prophesied that Jerusalem would be rebuilt and Messiah would appear and thereafter be murdered ; afterwards the city itself along with its holy place would certainly be destroyed. It reads as follows -

            24 “Seventy weeks of years are decreed concerning your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.

            25 Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.

            26 And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off, and shall have nothing; and the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war; desolations are decreed.

            27 And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week; and for half of the week he shall cause sacrifice and offering to cease; and upon the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.”

            With respect to the beginning of the prophetic seventy weeks , Nehemiah was given authorization by King Artaxerxes of Persia , in the twentieth year of his rule , in the month of Nisan , to reconstruct the walls along with the city of Jerusalem . ( Nehemiah 2 :1 , 5 , 7 , 8 ) In his calculations of the reign of Artaxerxes , Nehemiah evidently made use of a calendar year that commenced with the month Tishri ( September-October ) , as does the Jews’ present civil calendar , and then concluded with the month Elul ( August-September ) as its 12th and final month .

            To uncover the period corresponding to the twentieth annum of Artaxerxes , we must go back to the conclusion of the reign of his father and forerunner Xerxes , who perished in the latter part of 475 B .C .E . Artaxerxes’ accession year accordingly initiated in 475 B .C .E . , and his very first regnal annum is counted from 474 B .C .E . , as further historical facts tell us . Thus, the twentieth annum of Artaxerxes’ rulership would correspond to 455 B .C .E .

            The prediction states there would be sixty nine weeks of years “from the going forth of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Leader .” ( Daniel 9 :25 ) Secular history , in conjunction with the Holy Bible , presents proof that Jesus visited John and was then baptized by him , thus becoming the Anointed One , Messiah the Leader , at the start of fall of 29 C .E . Computing back from this point in the historical past , we are able to determine that the sixty nine weeks of years commenced in 455 B .C .E . In that year the pivotal “going forth of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem” occurred .

            What’s so extraordinary about all of this is the fact that Daniel dates the outset of his book as “the third year of the kingship of Jehoiakim the king of Judah .” This is to say, 618 B .C .E . , Jehoiakim’s third year as tributary king to Nebuchadnezzar . And so , hundreds of years well in advance, Daniel’s prophecy pinpointed the precise year of the Messiah’s coming . Almost certainly the Jews in the first century C .E . had made such computations based on Daniel’s prediction and so were watchful for Messiah’s appearance . The Holy Bible declares : “Now as the people were in expectation and all were reasoning in their hearts about John : ‘May he perhaps be the Christ ?’” ( Luke 3 :15 ) Whilst these were anticipating the Messiah , they, needless to say, were not able to calculate the specific month , week , or day of his advent . This is why , they puzzled over whether or not John was in fact the Christ .

            Gabriel additionally informed Daniel : “After the sixty-two weeks Messiah will be cut off , with nothing for himself .” ( Daniel 9 :26 ) It was soon after the conclusion of the ‘seven plus sixty-two weeks ,’ basically three and a half years later , that Christ was cut off in death on a torture stake , sacrificing everything he was , as a ransom for humanity . ( Isaiah 53 :8 ) Facts tells us that the Jesus invested the initial half of the “week” in the ministry . At one time , in all probability in the autumn of 32 C .E . , he presented an illustration wherein Jewish state was portrayed as a fig tree ( cf. Matthew 17 :15-20 ; 21 :18 , 19 , 43 ) that had borne absolutely no fruitage for “three years .” The vignaiolo told the proprietor of the vineyard : “Master , let it alone also this year , until I dig around it and put on manure ; and if then it produces fruit in the future , well and good ; but if not , you shall cut it down .” ( Luke 13 :6-9 ) He might well have referred to the duration of his very own ministry to that indifferent country , which ministry had persisted by this time for at least three years and was to carry on into a fourth year .

            It was subsequently after the 70 “weeks ,” but nevertheless as an immediate consequence of the Jews’ rejection of Christ in the course of the 70th “week ,” that the incidents described in the latter portions of Daniel 9 :26 and 27 were brought to fruition . History documents that Titus the son of Emperor Vespasian of Rome was the commander of the Roman armies that besieged Jerusalem . Like raging floodwaters, these legions stormed Jerusalem devastating the metropolis along with its holy place, the temple. The presence of these pagan legions in such a sacred place indeed made them a “disgusting thing .” ( Matthew 24 :15 ) Every single one of the Israelite’s endeavors leading up to Jerusalem’s waterloo to calm the circumstances were ineffective simply because God Almighty’s decree was : “What is decided upon is desolations ,” and “until an extermination , the very thing decided upon will go pouring out also upon the one lying desolate .” (Daniel 9 :26 , 27)

            So , yet again , we see the accurate fulfillment of specific events prophesied hundreds and hundreds of years ahead of time . But just like all these you will find dozens upon dozens of prophecies held within the Holy Bible . As it’s unquestionably absurd for anyone to foresee with 100 % perfection what’s certain to occur from one hour to the next , there’s no two ways about it : Bible prophecies simply cannot be of natural origin .

            These are each the unmistakable manifestation of the transcendent wisdom of our Creator , Jehovah God . *

          • wakeupkeo

            I concede that this may be enough evidence for you, but alleged prophecy fulfillment is not sufficient for me, since I do not trust the inerrancy of the Bible through its history. What else do you have?

          • Maxximiliann

            Argumentum ad lapidem. There’s nothing “alleged” about the historical facts I presented. Unless you have evidence that contradicts these historical facts your position is just untenable, irrational.

          • wakeupkeo

            ‘History is written by the victors.’

            That is why I subscribe to science and present theory. I do not believe stories of old as evidence. They may lead to evidence, but there are plenty of prophecies that do not come true as well. If god was perfect, why miss sometimes? Just to make people like me doubt? Ooh hes a tricky one and I fell for it!

            1 Unfulfilled prophecies of denial
            1.1 Destruction of Tyre
            1.2 Destruction of Egypt
            1.3 Nile will dry up
            1.4 Triumph of Judah
            1.5 Isaiah predicts the Nile drying up, Sea draining
            1.6 Egyptians will speak the dead language of Canaan
            1.7 Failure to smite Jebus
            1.8 Israelites will be unbeatable
            1.9 Land promises
            1.10 Israel will live in peace with its neighbors
            1.11 Davidic line will endure forever
            2 Unfulfilled prophecies of retrodiction
            2.1 Cyrus will conquer Babylon
            3 Unfulfilled prophecies that weren’t
            3.1 Virgin birth
            3.2 The messiah will be born in Bethlehem
            3.3 Jesus will be a Nazarene
            3.4 Jesus will be called out of Egypt
            3.5 Jesus will be pierced
            3.6 The suffering servant
            3.7 The great disappointment
            4 Unfulfilled prophecies of vagueness
            4.1 Daniel interprets Nebuchadnezzar’s dream

          • adam

            Yes, where is the Creator of this ‘god’ with the emotional maturity of a FIVE year old terror.
            Why hasn’t his parents straighten him out and stop all his psychopathic behavior and threats?
            Maybe they are too busy blogging all the time under various names while the little tyrant creates evil.

  • Pingback: priligy cialis


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X