Quote Originally Posted by God-free View Post
I have to stop you here. Are you asking me to help you build a scientific model so that we can test it, ****yze the data, and make predictions? If so, I’ve already made it clear that I don’t have the qualifications for this type of thing. I’m not a statistician. This would not be a fruitful discussion for either of us. So, I’m going to respectfully bow out of any further discussion on the topic of prophecy.

I do want to address the Einstein and Hawking quotes, though. The Einstein quote doesn’t mean what you think it means. You can read Einstein’s entire article at:
http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/ae_scire.htm
It isn’t very long.
Re the Stephen Hawking quote: Please provide the context. I suspect this, too, doesn’t mean what you think it means.

I know that quote is from ‘Steven Hawking’s Universe’ by John Boslough, 1985, but I don‘t own a copy or I would look it up myself.

Perhaps you should have a look at something a little more recent, such as:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe...ml?_s=PM:WORLD
Since the quotes of Hawking and Einstein were statements whereby we could begin a discussion and that both state that that science and religion are not an***hetical; they were used to add to the depth of what was to follow. As a result they are ancillary to the meat of the argument I proposed, and to dwell on them is to derail the thoughts I stated. As such, I deem the further discussion of ancillary trivia a derail of the topic.

But since I am aware of the dangers of quote mining, and since you questioned both the relevance and the context of the quote as being accurate, I submit this as my evidence of appropriateness:
.
Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
,
Do you recall making this challenge to Christodoulous?

Originally Posted by God-free [IMG]http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/images/****ons/viewpost-right.png[/IMG]

Revelation, of the sort found in religion, is unverifiable. Why in the world would anyone not think it through in order to determine whether or not it's trustworthy?

What I am doing is to provide a way to make a simple way to examine EXACTLY what you pontificated about. Instead, it seems that you are attempting to move the goal posts and changing the discussion to things that are not related to the issues, which I bring up in a rational manner.

Such movings of the goalposts included the discussion of statistics and when your irrational insistence on using a statistician when simple mathematical principles are used to determine probibility.

Another moving is noted above in your reply to my post.

Another is your ignoring the relevance of the Scriptures I posted as an answer to your questions

Originally Posted by God-free [IMG]http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/images/****ons/viewpost-right.png[/IMG]
All things that have been verified have never turned out to be anything but natural.
Realistic, critical, and practical are better descriptors of my approach but, of course, you're en***led to your own opinion.
Originally Posted by God-free [IMG]http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/images/****ons/viewpost-right.png[/IMG]


For me to conjure up something from my own imagination won’t get me any closer to a demonstrably valid reason to believe that the Bible is true and God is real. As a believer (and I’m ***uming you‘re also an adult), I want to know how you justify your beliefs, and I would hope that you‘d be able to articulate it. Who knows? Maybe you’ll be the one to bring me back into “the fold.” It’s not beyond the realm of possibility.
These quotes are also from you; and at this point, I am wondering if they are are disingenuous or genuine. Therefore I am asking you directly if you REALLY want to discuss the logical, reasonable and critical basis for faith or do you simply wish to avoid reality and continue in your illogical prejudice? I submit that what I have posted is indeed logical, but that what I am receiving in return has no basis in reality, nor is it logical. It is just specious reasoning designed to disguise a hardened heart.

I am open to logical discussion and have demonstrated that; but sad to say, you have yet to demonstrate that you are open to logical discussion.