Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

7703Re: PE 2.2.2.1 Naturalism refuted by supernatural Biblical prophecies (e.g. Mic 5:2 & Dn 9:24-26, etc ...)

Expand Messages
  • elf
    Jan 15, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      STEVE:

      >I always find it interesting when my atheist/agnostic opponents cannot even
      >bring themselves to capitalise "God", when that is just proper English
      >usage:

      ELF:
      Proper usage is to capitalize when referring to a speccific god,
      so above yes I did make a typo and fail to capitalize in the phrase "in
      fact God himself" above, but in the phrase "supernatural birth of a god"
      there is no rule requiring the word to be capitalized.

      Are you already reduced to grammar flames?

      STEVE:
      >whether or not one believes He exists.
      >
      >The `body language' message I receive is not of an atheist/agnostic serene
      >in his disbelief in God, but rather of someone who thinks God is real
      >enough to be cause them to put God's name in lower case, to try to make
      >Him seem less real!

      ELF:
      The body language message you are getting from me is that I was
      writing at midnight my time and the spell checker doesn't catch
      capitalization errors.

      The "body language message" I'm getting from you is that you're
      reduced to grammar flames.


      >EC>Ergo anyone who accepts the debate on your
      > >terms has already accepted the existence of the supernatural by accepting
      > >the existence of a supernatural god-man.
      >
      >No, (3) is my "Argument from Evidence"! It is up to Elf (or anyone) to
      >provide counter arguments and evidence to rebut it.

      ELF:
      If one has already yielded the conclusion by accepting that there
      was a supernatual Messiah born who could have been the subject of a
      prophecy, then he can't be too bright, since one has already admitted to
      the existence of the supernatural, eh?

      STEVE:
      >If Elf (or anyone)
      >doesn't, then it stands. That is normal scientific practice that a theory
      >that
      >accounts for the evidence, and is published openly inviting refutation,
      >stands until it is refuted by better evidence and arguments.

      ELF:
      Lets try a different tack. Let's say I *were* going to debate the
      subject, my first argument would be that Daniel isn't a prophecy *because*
      the Jesus of the gospels was never born, the events supposedly of his life
      depicted in the gospels never happened, ergo Daniel fails as a prophecy
      because *even if* it's a prophecy of a Messiah, *that Messiah* was never born.

      Which means that right out of the starting gate all of those
      arguments you have locked and loaded and ready to go now are aimed at a
      non-existent target.

      Do you understand now?

      <snip>


      ciao

      elf
    • Show all 7 messages in this topic