September 22, 2009

When Evidence Confirms The Bible

A while ago Science admitted that an Asteroid Destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah but as we know The Bible already told us about it and said it was God Himself that destroyed the wicked cites. It also made me think that scientists and researchers are searching for God, secretly, while we are not looking. These days many are explaining that the "evidence" that corresponds to the Bible is merely circumstantial evidence or coincidental.

Interesting though, you can send a man to prison on circumstantial evidence but it may be not enough to convince people about God. I understand that evidence is not faith, and we shouldn't look to science to find God. We need to, as instructed to us by God Himself, trust based on the current evidence. I can wonder though.

What will atheists do when science does find undeniable evidence that agrees with the Bibles claims? Will they believe in that "smoking gun" that the Bible is actually a historical narrative to be understood plainly? Will nonbelievers believe that God exists and created the Universe, as the Bible says, or would they still hold on and 'believe' in Neo-Darwinian evolution or metaphysical naturalism? I guess I am just wondering what would it take, if anything? I suppose even if Neo-Darwinian evolution completely falls apart as a theory, Atheists would still claim that God of the Bible, though historically accurate, may not be the God that Created the Universe. Right?

What if Dani'El is right? Would that convince anyone to repent and trust God? Would you just consider him just another crazy Christan that just happen to predict something, somehow?

ICR said: "We are warned that friendship with the worldly lifestyle and that which espouses the "things" of the world, makes us an "enemy of God" (James 4:4). That is because such people embrace the "spirit of the world" and not "the spirit which is of God" (1 Corinthians 2:12). Those people speak about the things of the world, and the world listens to them (1 John 4:5).


God's people may be "base" and "weak"--even "foolish" in the eyes of the world (1 Corinthians 1:27-28). Since the great Creator God has chosen us out of the world (John 15:19), it should not surprise us that the world "hates" those who belong to the Lord Jesus (John 17:14). Hence, the ungodly passions that drive the ungodly behavior of the world, "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world" (1 John 2:16).

Those passions and the people who embrace them will "pass away." (Sodom and Gomorrah) But "he that doeth the will of God abideth forever" (1 John 2:17)."

What if Dani'El is right? Would that change the hearts of any? What if the Prophecies of the Bible started to happen? Would that even be enough evidence to convince a hardened Atheist that the end may be near? Dani'El admits that he is not predicting or prophesying the end of the world, but the destruction of a wicked city like Sodom and Gomorrah, as God has done so many times in the past. For Dani'El's sake I hope he is right as he continues his walk with God, and for all of our sake here in California I hope Dani'El is wrong. Either way, God will be glorified.

I wonder what would it take to change such strong presuppositions that there is no God? Would even impending doom suffice? I would venture to guess, probably not.

44 comments:

  1. Dan: I read the article, and while interesting, it doesn't say anything that supports a divine source for the Bible. If the interpretation of this clay tablet is true (which is still moot), then it is an eyewitness account of a meteorite striking the Earth in 3123 B.C. Perhaps it really destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, and thus establishes that part of the Bible is a true historical account. Interesting, but so what? No one contests the obvious fact that there is a lot of more or less true history in Scripture. But that doesn't prove that everything in the Bible is true, does it? There's at least some true history in Gilgamesh, too: does that prove that Enkidu slew the Bull of Heaven? Many if not most ancient myths are a mishmash of true events, more or less accurately recorded, with gods, miracles, and wonders.

    You say:

    For Dani'El's sake I hope he is right as he continues his walk with God, and for all of our sake here in California I hope Dani'El is wrong. Either way, God will be glorified.

    The old "heads I win, tails you lose" ploy, eh, Dan? I guess it doesn't matter at all what happens, then, as long as God is glorified.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Scraping the bottom of the barrel, Dan?

    The article states this account not only explains "the Old Testament tale of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.." but also the "Ancient Greek myth of how Phaeton, son of Helios, fell into the River Eridanus after losing control of his father’s sun chariot."

    Nice try though.

    Also, I am sure you know that the towns of Soddom and Gommorah have never been found. If they do find a place they suspect is one of those towns it should be easy to identify since it will be loaded with Iridium and chunks of meteorites.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Froggie,

    "If they do find a place they suspect is one of those towns it should be easy to identify since it will be loaded with Iridium and chunks of meteorites."

    You mean like the Tunguska event?

    Nice try though.

    ReplyDelete
  4. By the way Dan, the premise of your post "When Evidence Confirms The Bible" is a misnomer as you presented no evidence that confirms the bible.

    You are definitely getting desparate.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The Tunguska event did not rain down fire and brimstone.

    ReplyDelete
  6.      "What if Dani'El is right?"
         Daniel is already a false prophet. He claimed a faith that would enable him to move mountains and then got very evasive on the "prove it" part.
         "What if the Prophecies of the Bible started to happen?"
         I did a post on my own blog some time back on judging a prophecy. The biblical prophecies fail automatically because they are open-ended. They can fail to happen forever without you having to admit that they failed.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hold on, Z... I know what you're saying, but Dan has a nasty habit of running with scissors. The tablet seems to describe an impact event, this much is true, and based on what I read, the information on the tablet was used to extrapolate an approximate date of the event described as being ~3123 BCE, although the tablet itself is only from ~700 BCE.

    The question isn't whether the impact event took place, but whether, as Dan gleefully and misleadingly claims in the post, science has "admitted that an Asteroid Destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah" (capitalization Dan's). That The Times has chosen to represent the story in this fashion is likewise unfortunate and dishonest, and while this tablet seems to corroborate certain aspects of the biblical tale, 'science' has clearly not admitted that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by fire and brimstone as a result of any sexual misconduct or other untoward behavior, nor that any witnesses spontaneously transformed into pillars of salt as a result.

    The existence and destruction of the cities is not especially strange, and is not necessarily in dispute. The destruction of these cities as a divine act of judgment is another thing entirely. For Dan and The Times to misrepresent this article in such a way is quite dishonest, though at least The Times had the wherewithal to note that this event likewise "confirms" the tale of how Phaeton lost control of the sun chariot and fell into Eridanus... Something tells me, though, that Dan wouldn't see this as science "admitting" anything about Greek mythology.

    As Zilch was saying, then, the loosely historical accounts of the bible are not disputed -- else Dan should instead say something like, "Sciance haz admited That Isreal is a cuntry Just Like Teh Bibble Sez!@!!!11!"

    Again, that there was an impact event is clear based on actual direct evidence. That this tablet was describing that event is extrapolated, and even if we accept it as describing this particular event (which seems to pretty obviously be the case), it says nothing whatsoever about the magickal nature of the event, including both firebombing fags and incompetent chariot-drivers.

    What I find especially amusing in all this, though, is the obvious hedging on Dan's part regarding El Dani's prophecy. When it seemed that El Dani's prophecy (one of the earlier versions) was incorrect, Dan had all but written off the deluded San Francisco sage as a crackpot, yet now, facing the final hours before the revised prophecy likewise passes uneventfully, Dan has taken up a more neutral stance -- but he's remaining in Fresno (right?), so his apparent friendliness doesn't translate into giving-a-shit.

    Of course, this is all only because El Dani professes to be of the same faith as Dan, but as Dan has been shown, he is unable to determine who is, and who is not, a True Christian™ with any useful reliability, so unless El Dani explicitly states he is not a True Christian™, Dan tentatively treats him as one. This is troublesome and illustrative, however, for if El Dani were prophesying as a Muslim, Dan would have no qualms whatsoever about denouncing the prophecy and dismissing his rants as the ravings of a deranged lunatic. The left hand of the Christian god, it seems, doesn't know whether the right hand is scratching its balls or fisting itself.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  8. Tisk, tisk, our vulgar Stan,

    You are right in one way, I don't care. I have not had any "revelation" to be frightened and boot scoot out of here. If God did reveal that I should get out of here, I would. If it does happen rapidly and my family and I perish please, pretty please, take that as a warning from God that He indeed exists. Repent and Trust and we can discuss it later.

    You also must admit that I have full right to be neutral in such a short time span. Literally, time will tell of the prophecy. The fruit will be revealed.

    And yet once again where do you get your morals that "misleading", for example, is wrong? You have yet to explain how you account for your morality.

    Bahnsen said "As Christians we have an absolute, unchanging, holy law to provide an absolute, unchanging, holy foundation for our ethical outlook and our moral conduct.

    You Stan, as a non-Christian, can have no abiding moral standards because you have no foundations for them. You can't even declare wrong such atrocities as genocide, cannibalism, human sacrifice, infanticide, pederasty, widow immolation, or community suicides."

    Why are you so jusgmental? From what standard are you able to judge me from?

    :7)

    ReplyDelete
  9.      "You Stan, as a non-Christian, can have no abiding moral standards because you have no foundations for them."
         Well, that's another lie. The moral edict that harming people is wrong is, itself, a foundation.
         "You can't even declare wrong such atrocities as genocide, cannibalism, human sacrifice, infanticide, pederasty, widow immolation, or community suicides."
         I assure you that he can. It is you that cannot. According to your "holy book," your god has endorsed and/or commanded several of those attrocities in the past. And because "his ways are not our ways," he may endorse or command any of those in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Stan- you're quite right, my reading of the article was sloppy. Mea culpa. Thanks for precising* my post.

    But while I did concede more than might have been warranted- the possibility that Sodom and Gomorrah existed and that their meteoric destruction was documented in the Bible- my point, and yours, remain unchanged and unchallenged.

    Dan- you do understand, don't you, that there's a difference between recognizing that there are real events documented in the Bible, and saying that the Bible is divinely inspired, and that all of it is true? As Froggie said, are you now also more inclined to believe that Phaeton crashed his dad's sun chariot into the Eridanus? If not, why not?

    * pr├Ązisieren is a verb in German, and a very useful one, meaning "to make (more) precise". Since English is flexible in allowing words to assume new parts of speech (host, impact, access, etc. were all only nouns when I was a kid), why not do the same for "precise"? Let's verb it, and then gerund the verb. I am thank.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Pvb,

    "The moral edict that harming people is wrong is, itself, a foundation."

    OK great. Based on what? If we, as a society, ate our enemies that we defeated would that be the foundation of our morals? Cannibalistic societies are moral then?

    You see, you are missing an important part. I am trying to get you to account for your logic, reason, and morals. You cannot say because God said it, so where does it come from? Is is merely subjective?

    Evaluations require a standard of measure. As pointed out before, If good is intuited there is a huge problem. You cannot argue about good, you just intuit what is good. You cannot have a rational discussion about right or wrong, because you have no way to resolve differences of opinions. This reduces morality to subjective preferences that bind no one, not even the subjectivist who may change his view at any moment.

    Bahnsen said, "You have no predictable way to say that a person's intuition about good is good itself. You end up having to intuit that your intuition is right, then intuit that your intuition about your intuition is right. On and on through an infinite regress which results from not having an absolute, self-verifying standard. So then, on this approach to ethics you cannot criticize any society."

    How can you use terms of morality other then mere subjectivity. How can you stand and say "that is wrong"? Personal opinion?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dan:

         It is the nature of foundations (as you know) that they are not based on anything else. The foundation is the bottom that holds everything else up. Similarly, your belief in your god is not based on anything else. You like to say "the impossibility of the contrary." But that just means you are stuck.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Let's verb it, and then gerund the verb. I am thank.

    I am to laugh loudingly.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dan
    And yet once again where do you get your morals that "misleading", for example, is wrong? You have yet to explain how you account for your morality.

    Bahnsen said "As Christians we have an absolute, unchanging, holy law to provide an absolute, unchanging, holy foundation for our ethical outlook and our moral conduct.

     
    "Absolute", "UNCHANGING"? Bullshit. The same god who had pregnent women and kids killed in the OT is the same god that the "pro-lifers" worship today.

    That's one hell of a change! I'm sure I'll get all the same excuses and bs that I keep getting from you apologists when I bring this up.

    The point is, that whenever someone says that they sky-daddy telling them what's right and wrong is the basis for their morality, all that you do is that you admit that you, without your god belief, would have NO basis for morality since things like empathy, respect for others, thinking of the common good, are never good enough in your opinion...you people HAVE to have a sky daddy tell you what to do and what not to do.

    That it a child's level of morality, who does things only because his parents are watching him and will reward or punish accordingly.

    Most people grow out of that level of "morality", except for religious believers it seems.

    You people are too busy being self-righteous that you never bother to actually stop and think about what it means when you say stuff like that.

    You Stan, as a non-Christian, can have no abiding moral standards because you have no foundations for them. You can't even declare wrong such atrocities as genocide, cannibalism, human sacrifice, infanticide, pederasty, widow immolation, or community suicides."
     
    Bullshit again, for the reasons I listed above. As well, your own god ordered many of those things done himself.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Pvb,

    "It is the nature of foundations (as you know) that they are not based on anything else. The foundation is the bottom that holds everything else up."

    So your morals are subjective then? Your "foundation." Any morals are perfectly OK with you?

    ReplyDelete
  16. OK Reynold,

    "since things like empathy, respect for others, thinking of the common good, are never good enough in your opinion...you people HAVE to have a sky daddy tell you what to do and what not to do."

    So then, again, morality is merely subjective? My degree of respect for others may not be as strong as yours and that is OK with you?

    What makes your morals "better" then mine?

    If evaluations require a standard of measure, what is your measure?

    ReplyDelete
  17. You can't even declare wrong such atrocities as genocide, cannibalism, human sacrifice, infanticide, pederasty, widow immolation, or community suicides.

    First, Dan, the fact that you are committing plagiarism is pathetic, but to be 'fair,' you'd just add plagiarism to your unattributed quote above. While you've weakly offered citations to Bahnsen when you gargle Sye's semen, you also do things like the above, wherein you clearly pass off as your own a statement you literally copied directly from either his book (the above comes from Pushing the Antithesis, page 182 according to the Google Books version) or from someone else quoting his book (presumably with an included citation). Stop being a douche. Please?

    Second, and to the point, even were Bahnsen's assertion valid (it isn't), it is not I who has the problem with the items in his list, but you.

    Specifically, you cannot state that genocide, or infanticide, are 'wrong,' as they are both explicitly commanded by your god in his silly book. By describing these actions as 'atrocities,' Bahnsen, and you through your plagiarism, expose your actual position -- that you disavow these commandments of the god you postulate, thus contradicting your own position. Enter cognitive dissonance and hand-waving 'explanations.'

    You cannot say that infanticide, for instance, is wrong, but you must instead say that it is wrong not to commit infanticide [if it is commanded by god]. We've had this discussion plenty of times before, and the simple fact is that if you received a command from god to commit infanticide, you would not gas up your chainsaw and head to the maternity ward, but you'd instead weigh the 'command' against your own moral code and act accordingly.

    You know the Christian adage, When god says 'Jump,' you say, 'How high?' Well, what if god says, 'Kill infants'? I'll bet 'How may?' isn't your response.

    According to the objectively defined moral code I follow, which is itself an admittedly subjective derivation -- but one ostensibly based on axiomatic principles -- genocide and infanticide are 'wrong.' The others in your list are not necessarily wrong, depending on how you define them. 'Pederasty,' for instance, is merely anal sex, and may or may not refer to coerced male-on-male pedophilia (but you wouldn't know that, because you didn't type 'pederasty'; you typed 'control-c' and 'control-v'). Suicide is only 'wrong' if it is coerced, as is Sati. Human sacrifice and cannibalism are only wrong if the body involved was or is to be murdered -- otherwise, it's just a weird and possibly disturbing ritual involving a carcass, or a similarly weird and possibly disturbing form of suicide.

    You know, sort of like Communion, or intentionally seeking to have oneself crucified.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  18. Stan,

    Yes these are arguments by Dr. Bahnsen as I have already disclosed. You and the others are fully aware that these could never be my thought because of my basic education. You all know me way to well to think otherwise. I revealed that these are his arguments from the beginning.

    In light of your response though, I suppose I could of quoted everything with the source. For that I was wrong. I just thought you all knew that from the beginning when I said, and I quote, "**Of course this argument was taken from the late Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen."

    Actually I could have said Cornelius Van Til to be more accurate.

    "but you'd instead weigh the 'command' against your own moral code and act accordingly."

    Dr. Bahnsen's point is that my own moral code is from God according to his nature.

    ReplyDelete
  19. **Of course this argument was taken from the late Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen.

    [scolding]

    That was two posts ago. Are we to assume that every 'argument' you've made since that post -- including both main posts and comments -- has been Bahnsen's?

    Obviously not.

    What, then, of when you directly quote the man (without citation)?

    Obviously, you should attribute those quotes to him. Saying simply, 'According to Bahnsen, you can't even declare...' would be appropriate. You needn't cite chapter and verse for every paraphrase or quotation, but whenever your comments or posts are not typed, but pasted, you damned sure should say so.

    I understand your failure here is due to your general incompetence with respect to writing, and your inability to distinguish honesty from dishonesty (due to the sliding scale of your 'objective moral code'), but it's a pretty key point: don't misrepresent another person's thoughts as your own.

    [/scolding]

    Now, address the points raised.

    Dr. Bahnsen's point is that my own moral code is from God according to his nature.

    Perhaps that is his intention, but it is no more true for the saying so. If you would not immediately and unequivocally sharpen your pitchfork and locate a nursery if god commanded you to kill infants, you necessarily either apply your own moral code -- whichever you end up following -- or you paradoxically use god's moral code to identify god's moral code. According to you, recall, god has commanded infanticide. It follows therefore that god may command infanticide in the future, including commanding that you perform the task. If you would not ask god 'How many?' ball-peen in hand on your way to the pediatrician's office, you must be applying some moral code other than the one you posit.

    If you want to measure a meter-stick, you need another meter-stick, or a longer tool of measurement. If one of them is considered the standard, the other is necessarily subservient. Infanticide, then, sits on your standard meter-stick somewhere between 'genocide' and 'conspiracy to commit filicide.' You cannot say that it does not fit into this measurement system, so again, you must apply a different standard -- your own -- or you are merely measuring the stick based on its own markings.

    Insofar as it may be possible to describe my system as 'subjective,' to say that yours is not is to be deliberately or ignorantly deceptive. Even if I grant that my system is 'subjective' (which I tentatively do not), only your system claims that its 'objective' standard can and does include infanticide, however limiting the specific cases may be.

    Only one of us can say without explicit contradiction that infanticide is always wrong.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  20. What makes your morals "better" then mine?
     
    They're not based upon the whims of a morally schizoid being like your god, who has people whacked on a whim?

    Why is the obvious point from my last post flying over your head like this?

    Stan:
    According to you, recall, god has commanded infanticide. It follows therefore that god may command infanticide in the future, including commanding that you perform the task. If you would not ask god 'How many?' ball-peen in hand on your way to the pediatrician's office, you must be applying some moral code other than the one you posit.


    Dan:
    Dr. Bahnsen's point is that my own moral code is from God according to his nature.
     
    Yeah, the nature of a being who has people, including pregnant women killed off because he got ticked off, then turns around and tells us "thou shalt not kill".

    LOL!

    "Doctor" Bahnsen was a fool!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Stan,

    "Are we to assume that every 'argument' you've made since that post -- including both main posts and comments -- has been Bahnsen's?"

    Sure, as anything about general relativity is Einstein's, so what.

    If it is about presuppositional apologetics it sure has been Bahnsen's. If it has anything to do with Presup apologetics then I, Sye, and even Bahnsen have to give credit to Van Til. I just thought that was a given.

    I will strain to quote in the future though. I thought it was oh too clear that it was indeed an argument that was not mine and only could come from Bahnsen. I apologize. Now that the diversion is over...

    "Only one of us can say without explicit contradiction that infanticide is always wrong."

    Ouch, I do suck at this...I hate you...back to the drawing board.

    In God's defense, AND I QUOTE, "Yes, God has the absolute right to claim anyone's life at any time by any means — He is the giver of life. He knows that He can restore that life just as easily, but more importantly, He knows that our earthly life is all that dies — the soul is eternal. The soul, therefore, is the only part of life that is really, real."

    ReplyDelete
  22. Dan:

    In God's defense, AND I QUOTE, "Yes, God has the absolute right to claim anyone's life at any time by any means — He is the giver of life. He knows that He can restore that life just as easily, but more importantly, He knows that our earthly life is all that dies — the soul is eternal. The soul, therefore, is the only part of life that is really, real."
     
    Long story short, it's nothing but a plain double-standard. If god does it, it's ok. If we do the exact same thing, it isn't.

    Here you are, telling us that we can't objectively say that infanticide is "wrong", yet your statement above shows that Stan is right...it's you who can not say that it's always wrong. If "god" does it, it's ok.

    Gotcha. That statement doesn't help you at all, since god tortures "souls" for all eternity in hell, and it doesn't deal with what Stan (and later I) posted at all!

    As an aside, how come you can't tell before the fact that Dani'El is a false convert? Why is it only after the fact (when his "prophecies" fail that you can tell? He sure sounds like one of you raving theists to me, that's for sure.

    Can't the "holy spirit" (provided it exists) let you know in advance through "discerment"? Even us atheists can be pretty damned sure that his "prophecy" will fail...

    ReplyDelete
  23. Reynold,

    "Gotcha."

    Yes, you are right, I suck.

    "As an aside, how come you can't tell before the fact that Dani'El is a false convert?"

    I can, I am in denial...for now.

    "Why is it only after the fact"

    It isn't. I am hopeful for his sake though.

    Can't the "holy spirit" (provided it exists) let you know in advance through "discerment"?

    Yes, I believe so. Every time I trust that deep inner voice, and not my hearts desires, I have always, and I mean always, been right. Something deep says there is no way, but again I am hopeful and look for the good and positive in life and others. I tend not to live in doubt anymore. I have Christ to thank for that also.

    To be fair though, I must look at Dani'El's fruit to be fair as possible and I have not even met the man. I am on his side and will help any way I can. In his walk, or anything else for that matter. I care about him...and you all.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Man!!!! Someone just said to me:

    "Cave hominem unius libri"

    *Gasp. I am getting killed today. Not my day at all.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Reynold say:

    Long story short, it's nothing but a plain double-standard. If god does it, it's ok. If we do the exact same thing, it isn't.

    That's right, and many Christians I've talked with will admit this. It gets confusing, though, because we (atheists and theists alike) often thoughtlessly use the same word, "good", to describe both "good for people" and "good for God". But while there might be a certain amount of overlap (telling the truth is good for everyone, for instance), there are lots of things that are "good" for God but not "good" for people- for instance, killing your enemy's babies is not good for people (unless ordered by God), but it might be good for God under some circumstances.

    Therefore, I suggest that we call our good "good", and God's good "gooder-good", or "gurd" for short. Then we can say, for example, "torturing our enemies for eternity is not good, but it is often gurd."

    I hope this helps clear up any confusion.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Dan say:

    Cave hominem unius libri.

    I'm inclined to agree. Only cave men were free, because they didn't have religion or knee-jerk liberalism to guilt them (note verbing).

    Seriously: Dan, you have a good heart. Run with it. But put down the scissors first.

    You are not the only one concerned about Dani'el. Somewhere in that creative, intelligent, funny, arrogant, maddening, crazy guy, there's a rational being trying to take over. I don't know and I don't care whether that rational being embraces Christianity or not, but I'd like to meet him one day. I suspect that's one of many things we have in common.

    About books: I'm not a one-book man. But some of the books I find myself reading over and over are:

    -the Bible (surprised? But there's a lot of interesting stuff and good poetry there, especially in the Wycliffe Bible)

    -Always Coming Home, by Ursula LeGuin. As she says, in an unprecedented (to my knowledge) usage of the future conditional progressive perfect tense, (I quote from memory): "This is the story of a society that might have been going to have lived a long time from now in Northern California." The heart is strong in this one.

    -Queen of Angels, by Greg Bear. Lots of science fiction authors have amazing imaginations, but Bear also has an unparalleled ability to sense the societal ramifications of new technologies, and also has characters with more emotional depth than a spoon.

    -Moby Dick, by Herman Melville. Yes, it's unrealistic, and sometimes he lays the metaphysics on a bit thick; but it has a cumulative effect that knocks off your socks.

    wishing you and yours all the best, whatever that means to you, from sunny Vienna, zilch.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Dan said...

    You see, you are missing an important part. I am trying to get you to account for your logic, reason, and morals.

    I have given you a link to an account for logic on at least 2 separate occasions - you have yet to even touch upon it let alone attempt to refute it.

    You cannot say because God said it, so where does it come from? Is is merely subjective?

    If you attribute the standard to God then yes, it is merely subjective.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Zilch,

    Your 'gurd' explanation brings on gerd.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Ouch, I do suck at this...I hate you...back to the drawing board.

    This, Dan, is why I stick around. Your occasional glimmers of honesty from underneath the thick veneer of dogmatic nonsense. Thank you.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  30. Same here Dan, Though we may disagree on many things, I respect the fact that there are moments that remind me you can be a very open minded and honest man. Thats very telling Dan.

    ~Atomic Chimp

    ReplyDelete
  31. I'll third what Stan and AC just said, Dan. But you already know that I love you.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I appreciate the comments guys but I have to make a point.

    Just because my knowledge sucks about a subject does not render the subject it false.

    I know nothing about the hypothalamus but that does not mean it does not exist.

    God and the truth about presuppositional apologetics does exist, no matter how much I suck at it...for now. I will work at it.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Zilch,

    I just heard something interesting since you mentioned that you are reading Moby Dick.

    I heard that Herman Melville was so poor and unknown as an author while he was alive that on his obituary they mistakenly called him "Harry Melville."

    Sad. Yet another artist appreciated only after passing away.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Dan- I know that Melville died in obscurity, but I never heard that story about his tombstone.

    Moby Dick is one of the books on my e-book, and it's one of those books, like Ulysses by James Joyce, that you can pick up and start reading anywhere.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Moby Dick is one of the books on my e-book, and it's one of those books, like Ulysses by James Joyce, that you can pick up and start reading anywhere. (emphasis added with respect to Moby Dick; else preserved)

    Wait, what? Are you suggesting it's possible to read Ulysses?! That book is one giant mindfuck. As legendary as I am in my own mind, I cannot even begin to fathom the unsoundable depths of Ulysses, and while I own it, and even made it about two hundred pages in, whenever I picked it up, I couldn't make heads or tails of any of it, much less recognize where I'd stopped from the previous reading.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  36. Stan,

    "begin to fathom the unsoundable depths "

    Bwahahaha Was that intentional? You so funny. Get it? Moby Dick, fathom, depth

    You crack me up.

    I found Moby Dick is a fantastic allegorical look into the whaling industry.

    What is the problem...student?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Dan:

         In defense of Stan, he did say that it was Ulysses that was unreadable.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Pvb,

    Ulysses?

    Hmm, unreadable (not read) by myself also.

    Sorry Stan.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I'll admit that Ulysses is a fair amount of work, and I will also admit that I don't understand all of it, but it's quite readable, especially compared to Finnegan's Wake, which really is unreadable, if evocative:

    riverrun, past Eve and Adam's, from swerve of shore to bend of bay, brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to Howth Castle and Environs. Sir Tristram, violer d'amores, fr'over the short sea, had passencore rearrived from North Armorica on this side the scraggy isthmus of Europe Minor to wielderfight his penisolate war: nor had topsawyer's rocks by the stream Oconee exaggerated themselse to Laurens County's gorgios while they went doublin their mumper all the time: nor avoice from afire bellowsed mishe mishe to tauftauf thuartpeatrick: not yet, though venissoon after, had a kidscad buttended a bland old isaac: not yet, though all's fair in vanessy, were sosie sesthers wroth with twone nathandjoe. Rot a peck of pa's malt had Jhem or Shen brewed by arclight and rory end to the regginbrow was to be seen ringsome on the aquaface.
    The fall (bababadalgharaghtakamminarronnkonnbronntonnerronntuonnthunntrovarrhounawnskawntoohoohoordenenthurnuk!) of a once wallstrait oldparr is retaled early in bed and later on life down through all christian minstrelsy. The great fall of the offwall entailed at such short notice the pftjschute of Finnegan, erse solid man, that the humptyhillhead of humself prumptly sends an unquiring one well to the west in quest of his tumptytumtoes: and their upturnpikepointandplace is at the knock out in the where oranges have been laid to rust upon the green since devlinsfirst loved livvy.


    That rather long word is a thunderclap, of which there ten in Finnegan's Wake, each composed of a hundred letters. Perhaps the truth can be found there.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Z, I think you misspelled pftjschute, but that's the only error I saw...

    ;)

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  41.      Well, Dan, it looks like Daniel has abandonned his blog. His prophecy failed, of course. Personally, I expected him to delete his blog, so that he could pretend it never existed.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Thanks so much for your Blog and for helping people to see the truth of God's Word. It is amazing how the Bible has stood the test over time and the many people who have tried to disprove it. Keep up the good work. I'd like to share a link to my Blog. This particular post is about science, evolution, and God:

    http://i61project.blogspot.com/2009/07/did-science-kill-god.html

    Peace in Christ, David

    ReplyDelete
  43. Dan...why do you throw your pearls before swine?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Point to when I have as evidence, instead of barely asserting that I have. I am fallible, in need of rebuking at times, that much is true.

      Delete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>