7703Re: PE 18.104.22.168 Naturalism refuted by supernatural Biblical prophecies (e.g. Mic 5:2 & Dn 9:24-26, etc ...)
- Jan 15, 2004STEVE:
>I always find it interesting when my atheist/agnostic opponents cannot evenELF:
>bring themselves to capitalise "God", when that is just proper English
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?
>whether or not one believes He exists.ELF:
>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!
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
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 yourELF:
> >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.
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?
>If Elf (or anyone)ELF:
>doesn't, then it stands. That is normal scientific practice that a theory
>accounts for the evidence, and is published openly inviting refutation,
>stands until it is refuted by better evidence and arguments.
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
Do you understand now?
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>