Autumn Reading for Jerry and friends

_{Vincent Torley

October 20, 2010

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Japanese maple leaves.

Over at Why Evolution is True, Professor Jerry Coyne has been busy at work. He has not only outlined a scenario that would convince him of God’s existence, but he has written an article entitled On P. Z. Myers on evidence for a god with a point-by-point rebuttal of P. Z. Myers’ assertion (backed up by eight supporting arguments) that there was no amount of evidence that could convince him of the existence of any kind of God. I believe in giving credit where credit is due, so I would like to congratulate Professor Coyne. Let me hasten to add that Professor Coyne is still a convinced atheist. As he writes: “To me, the proper stance is, ‘I haven’t seen a smidgen of evidence for God, so I don’t think he exists. But I suppose it’s a theoretical possibility.'” In the final paragraph of his post, Coyne declares: “I’m writing this post simply to continue a conversation that I don’t think has yet run its course…”

Well, Professor, I’m something of a magpie. I collect good articles. The 200 or so articles I’ve listed below are the “creme-de-la-creme” so to speak, of what’s available on the Web. Taken together, they make a strong cumulative case, on philosophical and empirical grounds, that God does indeed exist, and that the benefits of religion vastly outweigh the multitude of harms inflicted in its name. (There’s even a case where an amputee gets healed! Curious? Thought you might be.) I’ve also included some good articles on God, morality and evil, which will interest you. The arguments for the immateriality of the mind are also significant: they serve to undermine the materialist argument that there can never be a good argument for the existence of an immaterial Intelligence, since all the minds we know of are embodied and complex. Interested? Please read on.

Table of Contents

Section 1 – Philosophical Arguments for God’s existence
Section 2 – Miracles
Section 3 – The Attributes of God
Section 4 – God, Morality, Goodness and Evil
Section 5 – Arguments for the Immateriality of the Mind
Section 6 – Mysteries of the Christian Faith (The Trinity, the Incarnation and the Atonement)
Section 7 – Religion: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

For the list of articles, click here.

Enjoy!

Comments

"so that the Scriptures might be fulfilled: 'When they see what I do, they will learn nothing. When they hear what I say, they will not understand. Otherwise, they will turn to me and be forgiven.'" I have found the value of prophecy or any of the truth/facts offered here to be as affective as the "idea" that Coyne, Dawkins et all would repent in humble fear and plead with Almighty God for forgiveness. Here is the best (for those interested) work I know of on Daniel 70 weeks: http://www.familyradio.com/graphical/literature/framealan_{October 25, 2010
October
10
Oct
25
25
2010
07:44 PM
7
07
44
PM
PDT}

William, I would love to hear your arguments for smoking not causing cancer. Sincerely, I love learning about unconventional points of view. Concerning good and evil, I wonder if it is wrong to think of them like objects. Obviously, if there is a rock, but no "not-rock" it would be impossible to really identify it. But if there is good, but no not-good, is there no good still? I'm trying to think of an analogy. Here's one: on earth we are surrounded by matter. I cannot sense "not-matter." But that does not mean that matter does not exist. I can tell that there is matter because matter comes in various forms. Maybe there could be good without evil, if the good came in various forms, textures, weights etc. Good can therefore be distinguished by other good, rather than by evil. Like how one person chooses to serve at a soup kitchen while another chooses to just donate a portion of his wealth to charity, while another gives free medical care on his time off.Collin_{October 25, 2010
October
10
Oct
25
25
2010
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT}

Dr Torley: Thank you, in turn. I think that a follow-up guided tour will be very useful indeed, especially if you pause to highlight the significance of selective hyperskepticism as the key "error of the skeptic," as Greenleaf pointed out (as well as the onward significance of the ideologised, hostile, closed, blinded mind and the associated tendency to project turnabout accusations or to resort to the trifecta of distractive red herrings, led out to ad hominem soaked strawmen then rhetorically set ablaze to cloud, confuse, polarise and poison the atmosphere). Indeed, it is well worth pausing to cite from Greenleaf's Testimony of the Evangelists, Ch 1: _______________________ >> The docility which true philosophy requires of her disciples is not a spirit of servility, or the surrender of the reason and judgment to whatsoever the teacher may inculcate; but it is a mind free from all pride of opinion, not hostile to the truth sought for, willing to pursue the inquiry, and impartiality to weigh the arguments and evidence, and to acquiesce in the judgment of right reason. The investigation, moreover, should be pursued with the serious earnestness which becomes the greatness of the subject--a subject fraught with such momentous consequences to man. It should be pursued as in the presence of God, and under the solemn sanctions created by a lively sense of his omniscience, and of our accountability to him for the right use of the faculties which he has bestowed. In requiring this candor and simplicity of mind in those who would investigate the truth of our religion, Christianity demands nothing more than is readily conceded to every branch of human science. All these have their data, and their axioms; and Christianity, too, has her first principles, the admission of which is essential to any real progress in knowledge. "Christianity," says Bishop Wilson, "inscribes on the portal of her dominion 'Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, shall in nowise enter therein.' Christianity does not profess to convince the perverse and headstrong, to bring irresistible evidence to the daring and profane, to vanquish the proud scorner, and afford evidences from which the careless and perverse cannot possibly escape. This might go to destroy man's responsibility. All that Christianity professes, is to propose such evidences as may satisfy the meek, the tractable, the candid, the serious inquirer . . . [more]" >> ______________________ Well worth the read. GEM of TKI PS: CY, The Apologetics Wiki is indeed a very useful (albeit work-in-progress) compendium. The classic works site, topical section, will also be helpful. For quite a number of years now, I have found the rich trove of articles at CCC's Leadership U very helpful. Dr William Lane Craig's Virtual Office -- and the onward Reasonable Faith site -- will be helpful, especially his debates, which allow us to make "live" comparisons with the views of objectors to the Christian faith tradition that has so powerfully shaped our civilisation.kairosfocus_{October 25, 2010
October
10
Oct
25
25
2010
01:06 AM
1
01
06
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus Thank you very much for the links, and congratulations on your first post. look forward to reading more. I hadn't thought about doing a follow-up on the articles included in my list, but I might do that. Thanks for the suggestion.vjtorley_{October 24, 2010
October
10
Oct
24
24
2010
10:17 PM
10
10
17
PM
PDT}

....Woops, I hit "submit" prematurely Continuing with the arguments against: Who created God? The ultimate 747 Gambit (Dawkins) The biblical God is immoral As you can see, these are all typical denialist arguments, which do not address the positive arguments whatsoever. The positive arguments address these, and that's probably why the atheists avoid them.CannuckianYankee_{October 24, 2010
October
10
Oct
24
24
2010
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT}

Jurassic, Since KF posted a link to a site, which talks about the arguments for God's existence, I took a peak, and noticed that the site also links to the arguments against God's existence. These include: The problem of pain The problem of evil The problem of unvelief Science and religion are in conflict "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (Hume) Argument from poor design Omniscience opposition and free will Omnipotence parodoxesCannuckianYankee_{October 24, 2010
October
10
Oct
24
24
2010
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT}

VJTorley #35: One wonders that since there are some fraudulent doctors and scientists out there, if we should deny all science and medicine as fraud, according to jurassicmac's argument. It's interesting that most people who believe in, say, neo-darwinistic evolution, do so generally only on the word of media anecdotally presenting watered-down information, or perhaps by reading the testimony of a few scientists in third-party books or magazines, but refuse evidence of god, or the afterlife, or other things when it is presented to them in the same anecdotal or testimonial format, from people of good character. Which is the greater miracle, that a long string of genetic errors can build a human brain and imbue it with foresight and consciousness and awareness from scratch; or that some guy levitated? Even levitation is explicable via some random quantum quirk; but billions of years of "just so" errors producing human awareness and consciousness and a brain capable of holographic memories? Infinite universes? Infinite regress, creation from nothing, or thing creating itself? And atheists balk at a guy levitating just because it lends evidence to the existence of God? Astounding.William J. Murray_{October 23, 2010
October
10
Oct
23
23
2010
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT}

CannuckianYankee @#26: Well said and yes, it represents my view. You're spot-on about atheists that deny evidence; whenever an atheists says "there is no evidence for god", I point out that first, that's a universal, categorically negative, unsupportable claim that demonstrates the a priori position of denial, then second, that billions of people for thousands of years have testified as to their experience and to the existence of God, and that such testimony is by definition evidence. Then they wave that evidence away, and any anecdotal evidence, empirical evidence, objective scientific evidence, sound rational arguments, and go so far as to ask for incontrovertible evidence. That is obviously nothing but denial in the form of pseudoskepticism. For whatever reason, it seems rational to them to accept the absurdities one must put up with to be an atheist just to avoid the idea of God; it seems to me that many of these people reject god more out of hurt and moral outrage when it comes to evil in the world, and would rather embrace nihilism than what they believe must be a horrible God. Someone said earlier that god loves free will more than god would like to do away with evil; IMO for good to exist as good, everything that is non-good must also exist. No "X" can exist without "not-X" in order for X to be identifiable. God can no more do away with evil, IMO, than god can do away with good. I know that many people in the ID community disagree with that, but I have yet to see any argument for how an X can exist (good), without the concurrent contextual existence of not-X (not good) to frame it as a meaningful, identifiable thing or characteristic. Even God cannot take up a brush and paint one side of a canvas all black and all white at the same time; even God cannot create the good without simultaneously contextualizing it with what is "not good".William J. Murray_{October 23, 2010
October
10
Oct
23
23
2010
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PDT}

VJT (And CH): Looks like I went over the links budget! GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{October 23, 2010
October
10
Oct
23
23
2010
03:56 AM
3
03
56
AM
PDT}

Dr. Torley, Here is another video on fulfilled prophecy in the past,,,: The Bible: The Word of God? Extraordinary Claims Demand Extraordinary Evidence - video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5539836792491778083 ,,, for me the 'miracle' of Israel becoming a nation in 1948, in the preceding video in particular that is was found to be precisely prophesied thousands of years earlier, is the 'super sign' that should wake up many.bornagain77_{October 23, 2010
October
10
Oct
23
23
2010
03:56 AM
3
03
56
AM
PDT}

Sigh: The selective hyperskepticism we can see being showcased in this thread is ever so sad. Ever, so, sad. I suggest that -- in addition to VJT's most excellent reading list -- JM and others may profit from a 101 on that basic problem here, with a particular focus on the text box on the problem of the ideologised, thus closed mind. (And BTW, I found it very interesting that I could not find a cogent discussion of this fallacy and the turnabout false and/or strawmannish and/or ad hominem laced accusation in Wikipedia. I know the phrase "selective hyperskepticism" is my own coinage, but it would be nice to see a discussion of the substance of it, in light of say Simon Greenleaf's remarks. He is a key founding father of the anglophone theory of evidence in jurisprudence, cf. Gutenberg on his key work vol 1 here and vol 2 here. My notes on hyperskepticism pivot on his related discussion of the testimony of the evangelists, cf here and the Kregel reprint.) With that preliminary work in hand, I suggest a look at the discussion therein on the credibility of and warrant for the core Christian claims concerning Jesus of Nazareth, as are preserved in the NT, esp. the AD 55 text in 1 Cor 15:1 - 11. Thereafter, JM and co may find it useful to examine the wider discussion on warranted credible truths and foundations of worldviews, here, as in yes, we can use WCTs [including first principles of right reason] to assess the reasonableness of worldviews. Radical skepticism, radical relativism and fellow travellers -- such as evolutionary materialism, as is discussed in my own current post [pardon the implied promo] -- do not fare well. No great surprise. I believe that that sort of preliminary brush-clearing and bulldozing of rubble will then help prepare for the most excellent exercise in Autumn reading. GEM of TKI PS: VJT, do you intend to take Coyne et al on a guided tour of some of he highlights from your reading list? I think that would be a very useful exercise! PPS: Can I suggest for those pre-occupied with objections to the Christian faith a little supplement, and maybe a digest, too, for extra credit? (And Vox Day on the Irrational [New] Atheist[s] -- yep, he published the whole book online, free in multiple formats; he must be a disciple of Jim Baen -- will be useful as well.)kairosfocus_{October 23, 2010
October
10
Oct
23
23
2010
03:54 AM
3
03
54
AM
PDT}

bornagain77 Thanks very much for the links. I'll have a look at them tonight.vjtorley_{October 23, 2010
October
10
Oct
23
23
2010
03:02 AM
3
03
02
AM
PDT}

Alex73 Thanks very much for the Scriptural references. Here's another one: Luke 22:51.
49 When Jesus' followers saw what was going to happen, they said, "Lord, should we strike with our swords?" 50 And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear. 51 But Jesus answered, "No more of this!" And he touched the man's ear and healed him.
vjtorley_{October 23, 2010
October
10
Oct
23
23
2010
02:59 AM
2
02
59
AM
PDT}

jurassicmac, You really haven't looked at the evidence, have you? You didn't know that St. Joseph of Cupertino once helped some workers who were building a church by picking up a heavy wooden cross, carrying it through the air at a height of seven meters above the ground, hovering over the altar and finally putting it in its proper place, did you? It's all there in the records. And you didn't know that he once levitated in front of an astonished Pope Urban VIII, did you? Or that he levitated in front of the Duke of Brunswick, causing him to convert on the spot? I find your references to stage tricks (e.g. rabbits being pulled from hats) utterly unconvincing. Yes, there might be some clever 21st century magician who could figure out a way to fool an audience into thinking that he was levitating. But St. Joseph of Cupertino lived in the 17th century, and by all accounts he was none too bright. The idea that he could pull off a stunt that could fool thousands of learned people over a period of decades is simply preposterous. Either show me how a 17th century trickster could have pulled off his feats, or follow the evidence where it rationally leads. Whether people like it or not, miracles do happen, and for some of them, the evidence is convincing beyond all reasonable doubt.vjtorley_{October 23, 2010
October
10
Oct
23
23
2010
02:51 AM
2
02
51
AM
PDT}

BA, Sorry, I read your earlier post on the prophetic year after I had already posted.CannuckianYankee_{October 22, 2010
October
10
Oct
22
22
2010
09:40 PM
9
09
40
PM
PDT}

VJ, "There’s just one point I’d like to query: the claim that the Jewish year was exactly 360 days. Is this correct? I read somewhere that it was 354 or 355." I think what the author of this piece is using is not the Jewish calendar year, which is 12 months of either 29 or 30 days to equal 354 or 355 days. The author is using what is known as a "prophetic year," which as determined by scripture is 360 days. See the following article: http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/weeks.htm "Another reason some scholars say that we should apply a 360-day calendar to Daniel's prophecy is because of various Bible references that allude to a fixed 30-day month view of time. For example, in Genesis 7:24, it says that the flood lasted 150 days. And, in Genesis 7:11, it says the flood began in the 17th day of the second month. And in Genesis 8:4, it says that the flood subsided on the 17th day of the seventh month, when the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. So, these passages present us a 5-month period of time that is described as being 150 days in length. And that of course is five 30-day months."CannuckianYankee_{October 22, 2010
October
10
Oct
22
22
2010
09:34 PM
9
09
34
PM
PDT}

jurassicmac @ 23: ... God never heals amputees ... It was never really aware that it is such a big issue, so I googled it a bit. I was quite astonished how many websites are obsessed with this question. Anyway, Jesus did heal the amputees, or as the King James version puts it the maimed. It is mentioned in explicitly in Matthew 15,30-31. And great multitudes came unto him, having with them those that were lame, blind, dumb, maimed, and many others, and cast them down at Jesus' feet; and he healed them: Insomuch that the multitude wondered, when they saw the dumb to speak, the maimed to be whole, the lame to walk, and the blind to see: and they glorified the God of Israel. The word used there (kyllos) seems to mean lost limbs or other disfigurements, as it is used in Matthew 18,8 again: Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. So Jesus did it.Alex73_{October 22, 2010
October
10
Oct
22
22
2010
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT}

vjtorley:
However, the evidence for the miraculous levitations of St. Joseph of Cupertino is about as rationally persuasive as you could possibly ask for.
Yes, good point. It's not as if levitations could convincingly be faked. If they could, entertainers could sell tickets to shows where they pretend to levitate people. Or saw people in half. Or pull rabbits out of hats. You're right - stories of levitations from 3 centuries ago are as rationally persuasive as you could possibly ask for. And it's not like other cultures and religions have similar stories. How stories like this don't convince those bone-headed skeptics is beyond me.jurassicmac_{October 22, 2010
October
10
Oct
22
22
2010
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT}

JurrasicMac @18, thanks. I don't think I've ever heard that argument put so well. God must value free will above His desire to eliminate all evil. He is persuading us to eliminate it by coming to Him.Collin_{October 22, 2010
October
10
Oct
22
22
2010
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT}

Dr. Torley the prophetic year is calculated to 360 days: This is the proper Jewish Calender: JEWISH YEAR (Biblical or Lunar Year) 1 Lunar month = 29 days 12 hours 44 minutes = 29.530556 days 1 Jewish year = 12 Lunar months (solely dependent on moons revolution round the earth) Therefore, 1 Jewish year = 12 x 29.530556 days = 354.3667 days GREGORIAN YEAR (Julian or Solar Year) 1 Solar year = 365.2424 days (solely dependent on earths revolution round the sun) Therefore, 1 Gregorian year = 1 Solar year = 365.2424 days DIVINE YEAR (Gods Year) 42 Divine months (Rev 11:2) = 1260 days (Rev 11:3; Dan 12:7) 1 Divine month = 30 days (independent of the positions of the sun and moon) Therefore, 1 Divine year = 12 months = 360 days http://www.time2alert.com/Hebrew%20Calendar.htm further notes: The Precisely Fulfilled Prophecy Of Israel Becoming A Nation In 1948 - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4041241 The precisely fulfilled prophecy of Israel becoming a nation again is of no small importance, since the restoration of Israel clearly signifies the time immediately preceding the return of Christ. The Signs of Israel's Rebirth: Lesson 1: The Parable of the Fig Tree Concluding Statement: Now it should also be perfectly clear what the parable of the fig tree in the Olivet Discourse means (Matt 24:32-34). As the disciples were walking into the city on Tuesday morning after Palm Sunday, they noticed that the tree which Jesus had cursed the day before had withered and dried up. Later, on Tuesday evening, when the memory of the withered fig tree was still fresh in their minds, Jesus spoke the parable in question. He said that when the church sees the fig tree leafing out again, it will know that "it is . . . at the doors." The Greek for "it is" can also be translated "he is." In prophecy, "door" is often a symbol for the passageway between heaven and earth (Rev. 4:1). What the parable means, therefore, is that when the nation of Israel revives after its coming disintegration and death in A.D. 70, the return of Christ will be imminent. http://www.themoorings.org/prophecy/Israel/Israel1.html Even Sir Isaac Newton, who is considered one of the greatest, if not the greatest, scientist who has ever lived, was a avid student of Bible prophecy: Sir Isaac Newton's Prediction For The Return Of Christ - Sid Roth video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4041154 "Prophetic Perspectives, 2008-2015" - Jim Bramlett Excerpt: For years I have been intrigued with Newton's interpretation of Daniel 9:25 and the 62 weeks and 7 weeks (62 X 7 = 434 years, and 7 X 7 = 49 years), counted "from the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem." In his commentary on Daniel, a copy of which I have, Newton wrote that the interpretation of those 69 weeks is usually incorrect, violating the Hebrew language. He said the two numbers should not be added together as most scholars do, but the 434 years refer to Messiah's first coming (which he demonstrated), and the 49 years refer to His second coming, after Israel is reestablished, an idea unheard of 300 years ago but happening in our generation The start date for counting has been controversial. Many thought the 49-year-count would be the date of Israel's rebirth on May 14, 1948, but, alas, that did not work out. Other dates were tried unsuccessfully. But what if the count begins on one of the two most historical dates in Jewish history, the date in the miraculous Six-Day War when Israel captured Jerusalem and the Temple Mount: June 7, 1967? Assume the 49-year count (49 Jewish years X 360 days = 17,640 days), does start on June 7, 1967. Using a date-counter Web site we learn that the 17,640-day count takes us exactly to September 23, 2015. September 23, 2015 is the Day of Atonement! What are the odds against that? Many have believed that the Second Coming will be on the Day of Atonement. If he knew this, old Isaac Newton would be doing cartwheels and back flips right now. http://www.prophecyforum.com/bramlett/prophetic_perspectives.html The following scripture, which Jesus Himself spoke, gives significant weight to the idea that we should start our count of 17,640 days from the time Jerusalem came back into the hands of the Hebrews instead of counting the days from when Israel became a nation. Luke 21:24 "They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled." This following videos give 'astronomical' weight to the preceding prediction by Sir Isaac Newton of how the 'days of Daniel' are to be counted and is indeed very sobering: Mark Biltz Talks About The Return Of Christ On Sid Roth - Solar & Lunar Eclipses - 2014 - 2015 - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4056071 2012 - 2015 - Is Jesus Coming Soon? - Lunar Eclipses - Bible Prophecy - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4056087 Here is another line of 'mathematical' evidence that lines up with the year 2015 as well: Do 70 Jubilees predict the end of the world in 2015? Excerpt: The 70 “sevens” in Daniel 9:24 are 70 Jubilee cycles. These 70 Jubilee cycles bring us to the end of the world. When the children of Israel entered Canaan, their promised land, the LORD gave them sabbatical cycles and Jubilee cycles. Sabbatical cycles are 7 years long and Jubilee cycles are 49 years long. Each Jubilee cycle consists of 7 sabbatical cycles. The 50th year is called the Jubilee. Seventy “sevens” = 70 Jubilee cycles 70 x 7 x 7 = 3,430 years Daniel 9:24 Seventy “sevens” are decreed for your people to put an end to sin and to bring in everlasting righteousness. The 70 Jubilee cycles point to the time when God’s people will no longer transgress His law. Eternal righteousness will be brought into their lives. Then Jesus will come to take them to heaven. The 70 Jubilees predict Christ’s second coming. The 70 Jubilees began in 1416 BC when God’s children entered Canaan. The 70 Jubilees will end 3,430 years later in 2015 AD when God’s children will enter heavenly Canaan. (Of note: In Bible prophecy 360 days are used for calculating the length of a year:http://www.360calendar.com/#Part%20One) http://www.markbeast.com/endworld/jubilees-end-world.htm Another piece of very interesting evidence indicating that the return of Christ is very soon is the "Prophecy of the Popes": Prophecy of St Malachy - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UThJkZuI1cbornagain77_{October 22, 2010
October
10
Oct
22
22
2010
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT}

Dr. Torley the prophetic year is calculated to 360 days: This is the proper Jewish Calender: JEWISH YEAR (Biblical or Lunar Year) 1 Lunar month = 29 days 12 hours 44 minutes = 29.530556 days 1 Jewish year = 12 Lunar months (solely dependent on moons revolution round the earth) Therefore, 1 Jewish year = 12 x 29.530556 days = 354.3667 days GREGORIAN YEAR (Julian or Solar Year) 1 Solar year = 365.2424 days (solely dependent on earths revolution round the sun) Therefore, 1 Gregorian year = 1 Solar year = 365.2424 days DIVINE YEAR (Gods Year) 42 Divine months (Rev 11:2) = 1260 days (Rev 11:3; Dan 12:7) 1 Divine month = 30 days (independent of the positions of the sun and moon) Therefore, 1 Divine year = 12 months = 360 days http://www.time2alert.com/Hebrew%20Calendar.htm further notes: The Precisely Fulfilled Prophecy Of Israel Becoming A Nation In 1948 - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4041241 The precisely fulfilled prophecy of Israel becoming a nation again is of no small importance, since the restoration of Israel clearly signifies the time immediately preceding the return of Christ. The Signs of Israel's Rebirth: Lesson 1: The Parable of the Fig Tree Concluding Statement: Now it should also be perfectly clear what the parable of the fig tree in the Olivet Discourse means (Matt 24:32-34). As the disciples were walking into the city on Tuesday morning after Palm Sunday, they noticed that the tree which Jesus had cursed the day before had withered and dried up. Later, on Tuesday evening, when the memory of the withered fig tree was still fresh in their minds, Jesus spoke the parable in question. He said that when the church sees the fig tree leafing out again, it will know that "it is . . . at the doors." The Greek for "it is" can also be translated "he is." In prophecy, "door" is often a symbol for the passageway between heaven and earth (Rev. 4:1). What the parable means, therefore, is that when the nation of Israel revives after its coming disintegration and death in A.D. 70, the return of Christ will be imminent. http://www.themoorings.org/prophecy/Israel/Israel1.html Even Sir Isaac Newton, who is considered one of the greatest, if not the greatest, scientist who has ever lived, was a avid student of Bible prophecy: Sir Isaac Newton's Prediction For The Return Of Christ - Sid Roth video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4041154 "Prophetic Perspectives, 2008-2015" - Jim Bramlett Excerpt: For years I have been intrigued with Newton's interpretation of Daniel 9:25 and the 62 weeks and 7 weeks (62 X 7 = 434 years, and 7 X 7 = 49 years), counted "from the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem." In his commentary on Daniel, a copy of which I have, Newton wrote that the interpretation of those 69 weeks is usually incorrect, violating the Hebrew language. He said the two numbers should not be added together as most scholars do, but the 434 years refer to Messiah's first coming (which he demonstrated), and the 49 years refer to His second coming, after Israel is reestablished, an idea unheard of 300 years ago but happening in our generation The start date for counting has been controversial. Many thought the 49-year-count would be the date of Israel's rebirth on May 14, 1948, but, alas, that did not work out. Other dates were tried unsuccessfully. But what if the count begins on one of the two most historical dates in Jewish history, the date in the miraculous Six-Day War when Israel captured Jerusalem and the Temple Mount: June 7, 1967? Assume the 49-year count (49 Jewish years X 360 days = 17,640 days), does start on June 7, 1967. Using a date-counter Web site at http://www.timeanddate.com/date/duration.html we learn that the 17,640-day count takes us exactly to September 23, 2015. September 23, 2015 is the Day of Atonement! What are the odds against that? Many have believed that the Second Coming will be on the Day of Atonement. If he knew this, old Isaac Newton would be doing cartwheels and back flips right now. http://www.prophecyforum.com/bramlett/prophetic_perspectives.html The following scripture, which Jesus Himself spoke, gives significant weight to the idea that we should start our count of 17,640 days from the time Jerusalem came back into the hands of the Hebrews instead of counting the days from when Israel became a nation. Luke 21:24 "They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled." This following videos give 'astronomical' weight to the preceding prediction by Sir Isaac Newton of how the 'days of Daniel' are to be counted and is indeed very sobering: Mark Biltz Talks About The Return Of Christ On Sid Roth - Solar & Lunar Eclipses - 2014 - 2015 - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4056071 2012 - 2015 - Is Jesus Coming Soon? - Lunar Eclipses - Bible Prophecy - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4056087 Here is another line of 'mathematical' evidence that lines up with the year 2015 as well: Do 70 Jubilees predict the end of the world in 2015? Excerpt: The 70 “sevens” in Daniel 9:24 are 70 Jubilee cycles. These 70 Jubilee cycles bring us to the end of the world. When the children of Israel entered Canaan, their promised land, the LORD gave them sabbatical cycles and Jubilee cycles. Sabbatical cycles are 7 years long and Jubilee cycles are 49 years long. Each Jubilee cycle consists of 7 sabbatical cycles. The 50th year is called the Jubilee. Seventy “sevens” = 70 Jubilee cycles 70 x 7 x 7 = 3,430 years Daniel 9:24 Seventy “sevens” are decreed for your people to put an end to sin and to bring in everlasting righteousness. The 70 Jubilee cycles point to the time when God’s people will no longer transgress His law. Eternal righteousness will be brought into their lives. Then Jesus will come to take them to heaven. The 70 Jubilees predict Christ’s second coming. The 70 Jubilees began in 1416 BC when God’s children entered Canaan. The 70 Jubilees will end 3,430 years later in 2015 AD when God’s children will enter heavenly Canaan. (Of note: In Bible prophecy 360 days are used for calculating the length of a year:http://www.360calendar.com/#Part%20One) http://www.markbeast.com/endworld/jubilees-end-world.htm Another piece of very interesting evidence indicating that the return of Christ is very soon is the "Prophecy of the Popes": Prophecy of St Malachy - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UThJkZuI1cbornagain77_{October 22, 2010
October
10
Oct
22
22
2010
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT}

jurassicmac Thank you for your post. I acknowledge that the evidence for the amputee healing which I linked to is not rationally compelling. However, the evidence for the miraculous levitations of St. Joseph of Cupertino is about as rationally persuasive as you could possibly ask for. See here for the full story: http://www.messengersaintanthony.com/messaggero/pagina_articolo.asp?IDX=171IDRX=55 And if you think he might have been jumping or hopping, like the "yogic fliers," forget it. This was a guy who remained floating in mid-air for two or three hours, at times. I'll quote an excerpt from the final paragraph:
It has been calculated that Joseph's 'ecstatic flights' took place at least 1,000 to 1,500 times in his lifetime, perhaps even more, and that they were witnessed by thousands of people. They were the phenomenon of the century. They were so sensational and so public that they attracted attention from curious people from all walks of life, Italians and foreigners, believers and unbelievers, simple folk, but also scholars, scientists, priests, bishops and cardinals. They continued to occur in every situation, in whatever church in which the saint prayed or celebrated Mass. It is impossible to doubt such a sensational and public phenomenon which repeated itself over time.
vjtorley_{October 22, 2010
October
10
Oct
22
22
2010
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT}

Cannuckian Yankee This document might interest you, in connection with Daniel: Daniel's 70 Weeks See also 70 Weeks Chart There's just one point I'd like to query: the claim that the Jewish year was exactly 360 days. Is this correct? I read somewhere that it was 354 or 355.vjtorley_{October 22, 2010
October
10
Oct
22
22
2010
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT}

Jurassic, (William - correct me where I'm wrong, please) You presented some interesting thoughts. I don't think William is saying that the evidence for God is necessarily deniable in the logical sense. I think what he's saying is that we can choose to be irrational concerning God's existence. Or we can choose to believe that our rationalizations concerning His existence are coherent even when they are not - while at the same time, maintaining other non-religious "beliefs" that are coherent. God does not force us to believe through undeniable evidence - which would essentially be our undeniable experience of His presence among and within us. The question of God's existence is ultimate. It's interesting that most people claim to have made up their minds about God - some are as certain as they can be that he does exist, while others are as certain as they can be that he does not. Others claim to be in the middle as agnostics, but in my view, this is really a rational impossibility. I think they've made up their minds that God cannot be known. In that, they pretty much fall in line with atheists - but they're afraid to admit it, precisely because it is an ultimate question. If they are as certain as they can be that God cannot be known, how would they ever come to know that He really does exist? I think if I wasn't as certain as I can be that God does exist, I would probably fall in this category as well, because it would seem so ominous to simply deny His existence, when I'm not certain. After all, if He does exist, it would seem that the stakes are freighteningly high. So I think that the difference between an agnostic and an atheist is found in a certain degree of passivity. So it's a personality issue rather than a logic issue. And I don't say this as a judgment on them, as I am quite a passive person myself. This is why I would count myself among them if I wasn't as certain as I can be. :) But clearly there are people who have no problem denying God. They believe they are being rational in doing so. Whether they are truly being rational in their denial is another question. Something I have pondered is the fact that there are billions of people in the world who believe in God. Theists have developed an ongoing apologetic for His existence. This apologetic continues to be developed by some of the brightest minds in philosophy and theology. I've always wondered if among the billions of people who believe in God, the truly best arguments are yet to surface. Maybe there's a cloistered monk somewhere who has thought about God's existence all his life, and has the most powerful argument, but is keeping it a secret for one reason or another. Maybe there's a girl who's intelligence defies her youth, who thought up an undeniable argument, but nobody has encouraged her to share. Well, regardless of what might be, the best arguments we currently know are written down and distributed for anyone who wishes to inquire. Given that, I think it would be difficult to rationally deny God's existence with knowledge of the best of them. Very few of the atheists I have encountered are well versed in arguments for God's existence. What they are more well versed in is God denial, and most of those denials have been sufficiently addressed for those who care to look. In fact, I would say that much of the argumentation for God's existence stems from considering the arguments for His denial. The cosmological argument, for example considers the absurdity of actual infinites as an argument for God's existence, because if God does not exist, there's no accounting for the absurdity. The argument from evil considers a universe without God as being without love or justice. The teleological argument considers a universe without God as being chaotic. The moral argument considers a universe without God as a universe with no morality - not simply no basis for morality, but none whatsoever. The Transcendent argument considers a universe without God as a universe without logic or coherent properties. The design arguments suggest that we could find no evidence of art in a universe without God. Even the Bible contributes to considering the denial of God: "The fool says in his heart "There is no God." While this isn't an argument in the strictest sense, it does suggest that disbelief in God stems from logical folly, and if you read what follows in the verse, from moral corruption. The ontological argument seems to be the only argument for God's existence, which does not consider the non-existence of God - but then again, I don't put much weight on that argument. The atheist, is not so burdened with considering the arguments for God's existence, since the arguments for His denial are seen as sufficient. And I think this may be the reason why quite often debates between atheists and theists regarding God's existence, often center around the denial arguments. I've heard many of WL Craig's debates with atheists, and while he very effectively presents the positive arguments, he's even more keen on challenging the arguments of denial from his opponents, since that seems to be all they choose to present. I rarely hear his opponents addressing head-on the positive arguments he presents. I couldn't help but notice that you even presented a denial argument when considering Williams' statement regarding free will. William wasn't saying that God hides himself from us in order for us to have free will. He was saying that we can choose to believe God's evidence for His existence, or we can choose to deny it. He's not saying that the evidence isn't there. You mentioned Richard Dawkins. He's a perfect example of the God denialist. His book "The God Delusion" is chock full of denial arguments without much consideration of the positives. He doesn't debunk them, he simply ignores them. He's more interested in presenting a straw-man caricature of the Christian God and those who believe in Him, and saying "see, I've torn him down." But honestly, if anyone wants to be a true atheist and deny God, they really have to contend with all the arguments for His existence, and not simply the carefully constructed so as to avoid the positive, denialist arguments. I fully agree with William when he says that belief is something that we choose based on evidence. If we don't choose to believe, we will find a reason not to. This does not mean that we are necessarily being rational in such a choice. It may not even be an issue of rationality, but one of preference. We may choose not to believe because we don't want the morality that comes with belief in God, or because we dislike those who believe in God, or any number of other reasons. It doesn't mean necessarily that we have thought through all the positive arguments and found them lacking in coherence, and therefore our sense of morality has us choosing to not believe a lie. If that were the case, then the morality of God really does mean something, and we're contradicting ourselves. And it certainly doesn't mean that God has not provided us with coherent evidence. If that's what you perceive William to be saying, then I find it unfathomable that he would ignore one of the most important passages of scripture in this regard - Romans 1:18-20. Somehow I doubt if he is ignoring that passage. In fact, I think he knows as well as I know - the passage makes it explicit that God's existence cannot be denied on moral or rational grounds. The grounds upon which God allows us to deny him are clearly defined in that passage and several verses that follow.CannuckianYankee_{October 22, 2010
October
10
Oct
22
22
2010
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT}

IOW, jurassicmac, those with free will believe as they wish or choose, not as they must, IMO. An entity with free will is never compelled to believe anything by any amount of evidence.William J. Murray_{October 22, 2010
October
10
Oct
22
22
2010
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT}

jurrassicmac, I don't think you're really understanding my position; for those that choose to believe that the Earth is flat, or that the earth is @7,000 years old, or that their brother didn't really commit that crime, it might be that there will never be enough evidence to compel them to believe otherwise. Whether or not evidence is "compelling" is a subjective matter which largely hinges on ones interpretive bias. It's no more "convenient" that there isn't enough evidence to convince an atheist that god exists, than it's "convenient" that I don't find the evidence against god's existence compelling. Your questions about the Bible will have to be answered by someone else - I'm not very familiar with it. As far as when it appears that free will has been abridged, it's not my position that all humans (or other entities) have free will. The link between smoking and cancer is deniable. I know several people who deny it, and I personally don't believe smoking causes cancer. Every viewpoint and claim is deniable, at least by those of us who have free will.William J. Murray_{October 22, 2010
October
10
Oct
22
22
2010
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT}

vjtorley, the line that really piqued my interest in your list of articles was "There’s even a case where an amputee gets healed! Curious? Thought you might be." However, after reading it, my first though was: I don't know which is worse, that God never heals amputees, or that He did it just that one time. (odd that he would conveniently choose to do it in a time before photography or x-rays. I guess it's like William J. Murray said, if God provided too much evidence of His existence, it might violate our free will somehow)jurassicmac_{October 22, 2010
October
10
Oct
22
22
2010
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT}

allanius, I found this video interesting: Does God Exist? - Finding a Good God in an Evil World http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4007708/ further notes: The Common Out Of Body Experience / Near Death Experience Excerpt: "At the end of the tunnel was this brilliant and bright light. Brighter then a thousand suns, brighter then a million suns!! When I reached this light, I knew right away it wasn't just a light, but a BEING of light. Better yet, THE BEING OF LIGHT. The amount of LOVE that came from this being was immeasurable. Literally, words cannot begin to tell you how much love and peace I found within this light. Pure Love, pure acceptance. This was my creator, without a doubt. Here is what happened next..." http://www.extremelovespells.com/Out-Of-Body-Experience.html In The Presence Of Almighty God - The Near Death Experience of Mickey Robinson - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4045544/ If scientists want to find the source for the supernatural light which made the "3D - photographic negative" image, on the Shroud of Turin, I suggest they look to the thousands of documented Near-Death Experiences (NDE's) in Judeo-Christian cultures. It is in their testimonies that you will find mention of an indescribably bright “Light” or “Being of Light” who is always described as being of a much brighter intensity of light than the people had ever seen before . All people who have been in the presence of “The Being of Light” while having a deep NDE have no doubt whatsoever that the “The Being of Light” they were in the presence of is none other than “The Lord God Almighty” of heaven and earth. etc.. etc..bornagain77_{October 22, 2010
October
10
Oct
22
22
2010
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

William J. Murray @ 5
Also, if humans are to have free will, there cannot ever be evidence so compelling of god’s existence that one has no choice but to believe in God; god must always be deniable, or else we wouldn’t have free will.
That's a convenient explanation as to why we find no compelling evidence for God. Dawkins says it's the exact same reason we find no compelling evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. How is your argument different? I also find that an odd thing to hear from an I.D. proponent. What's the thinking behind I.D. then, that someday you'll outsmart God and actually find compelling evidence in the genome somewhere? If God intentionally remains hidden so as not to 'interfere with free will', why bother to look for evidence in biology? Or is it that God was only content with hiding from pre-scientific cultures? Your comment raises another question: If 'providing compelling evidence of His existence' violates free will, why did he have no qualms violating the free will of Lucifer and the angels, Abraham, Moses, the rest of the prophets, the disciples, (especially Thomas), and Paul? Who in the world wouldn't rather have their 'free will' violated and go to heaven than have their 'free will' remain intact and be tormented for eternity? I put 'free will' in quotes because I'm not sure how providing evidence of something affects the ability to choose one way or the other. Saying:
god must always be deniable, or else we wouldn’t have free will.
is like saying "The link between smoking and cancer must be deniable, or else smokers wouldn't have free will." or "The link between eating right and being healthy must always be deniable, or people who like junk food wouldn't have free will."jurassicmac_{October 22, 2010
October
10
Oct
22
22
2010
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT}

I don’t know, these attempts at demonstrating the goodness of God logically are starting to drive me a little batty. I guess the problem is "good” always remains undefined. It becomes axiomatic, like in Greek philosophy, which not only weakens the argument but, frankly, makes it kind of scary. Call it the Milton positive. All this content-free talk about “goodness” almost makes us want to run to Satan, who at least is showing a little passion. Fortunately the Bible doesn’t make any attempt that I’m aware of at demonstrating God’s goodness through reason and its bloodless “rules.” Instead it makes the bald assertion that God is love and is characterized by graciousness, compassion and kindness, something even I’m capable of understanding. As long as I focus on God telling us who he is in his own book, I feel pretty good. If I look away and get absorbed in what our Uzzahites are doing in their eagerness to help God out, I feel that confidence slip sliding away…allanius_{October 22, 2010
October
10
Oct
22
22
2010
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 6 7 8 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply