what would it take to convert you to the other side

Here is a page of quotes from some who either have converted or who reason that theism is a viable explanation for observed phenomena.This conversion of an athiest physicist is one example in the page of quotes. After conversion he authored the book, The Physics Of Christianity.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Are you sure you want to use Frank Tipler as your example? LOL

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Yeah, but if he can literally see the future why not? Why not pick up a newspaper during the vision?Buz, you make way too many excuses for your "prophets." You're truly ridiculous. If they're really clairvoyant, they should be able to do these things. Seeing the future would be a truly extraordinary activity so it makes no sense at all not to make extraordinary demands of those who claim to be doing it.It doesn't count as "seeing the future" if you make such general and nonspecific predictions that they can't help but be eventually interpreted as "true." Something will always happen. Always.The shell game you play is that you take some incredibly non-specific or fanciful portion of the "prophecy" - I think last time it was the notion that "God would speak from the sky" or some such - interpreted it in the light of some contemporary coincidence, like the Bible channel coming in over satellite, and then asserting that the passage can only mean that, despite the fact that it could clearly mean anything at all.Prophecy is a mug's game. That's been known since the ancient Greeks. Somehow, two millennia later you still haven't gotten it.

It would seem a common thread. Why? I'd observe him, others would observe him, he'd have persistence and independence. People would talk with him, report on what he says - film him. Weigh him. All sorts of things. How would that destroy empiricism? I'd be in the position that the entity in question exists. Unless said entity supplied evidence that he designed empiricism - why would I have to realise it? Direct revelation is an empirical demonstration. However it is much more unreliable than a persistent corporeal entity such as a cat or a planet so your contention of equal dependence is rejected I'm afraid. If everybody describes my cat differently (white, blue and green, size of a lion/mouse, barks like a dog and has wings) when we get our information by 'direct revelation' - I'd suspect I don't really have a cat. If there was consistency of characteristics between reporters that would certainly be noteworthy. If another person's revelation could be tuned into like Revelation onDemand - that'd be pretty compelling.

If I pointed to a christian who converted to Hinduism would this suggest that you are being foolish for remaining a christian?

Well actually it still isn't possible, because most computers don't ship with the Behead-O-Matic 666 attachment as standard hardware. Y'see, this kind of plays into the thesis that religion is a really bad idea.I may have my worries and my problems, but one thing I don't have to worry about is someone decapitating me for not worshiping the Internet. This is one of the minor benefits of atheism.

Now that's a puzzler. How would empiricism be destroyed without wiping out all biological life on the planet?

quote:

---

A prophet need not specify dates in mellinnial prophecy to be specific, especially when fulfillment entails eras such as the Industrial (and techy) Revolution rather than specific dates.

---

Ah yes, let's look at one of Buz's "specific" prophecies. He says that Nahum 2:3-4 is about auto wrecks Here are the verses as the NASB renders them: The observant will already have noticed an obvious detail that doesn't fit. Cypress spears. Maybe you are saying to yourself that maybe this refers to an ancient army attacking by night ?If you look at the context you will find that this is rather more likely. Nahum is addressed to the ancient city of Nineveh. and 2:8 confirms that these verses are talking about the fall of Nineveh. So in fact Nahum was too specific for Buz. The way he dealt with 2:8 is particularly instructive. The translation he normally uses has the word "but" rather than "though". So Buz invents his own meaning for the word "but" where it is no longer a conjunction, but instead marks a complete change of subject ! Then he decrees all translations that use the word "but" to be correct and all others wrong, despite the fact that he doesn't understand the Hebrew at all.Obviously everyone who accepts Buz as the supreme authority over the English language and over the Bible finds this argument perfectly convincing. And those with a more realistic view of things come to rather different conclusions.In short the "specifics" generally come from Buz, not from the prophecy...(for more look at the thread starting with Message 217)

What can you tell us about Tipler?

Maybe that he proposes a way to immortality and resurrection with computers based on the universe itself that eventually becomes infinitely powerful and becomes god.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Yeah I guess that would not be real supportive of Buz's claim.

He's very bright. He realized that if he wrote books claiming "Science Proves not just God but the Christian God" he would get rich.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I read his book "The Physics of Immortality" somewhere around the time that it came out (1994). It is hard to take Tipler seriously after that.

For the reason I gave, about which you said.. I included the rider "sufficient to convince you of his existance" in my original statement. If convinced it was God then you'd be convinced he created everything - including belief-via-empiricism. Assuming you accept that he could demonstrate it was he then the problem outlined stands - as does the request to clarify on that statement you might make.If you don't accept he could persuade you he was God then you'd appear to be kicking for solipsist touch. I mean, God performing miracles-on-demand before the eyes of however many people you like wouldn't convince you empirically that it was he?Direct revelation is an empirical demonstration. However it is much more unreliable than a persistent corporeal entity such as a cat or a planet so your contention of equal dependence is rejected I'm afraid. If everybody describes my cat differently (white, blue and green, size of a lion/mouse, barks like a dog and has wings) when we get our information by 'direct revelation' - I'd suspect I don't really have a cat. If there was consistency of characteristics between reporters that would certainly be noteworthy. If another person's revelation could be tuned into like Revelation onDemand - that'd be pretty compelling.[/qs]I'll assume at this point you're back with the original problem..

Now Buz, how am I to know if that is a long list of misquotes or not? Just because a scientist uses the word "God" in an isolated sentence in no way means that they were atheists and converted to belief of some kind, much less Christianity.I'm not going to accept any of them out of context; least of all the one from Stephen Hawking, who is well known to be an Atheist.So, if you would like to pick a few of the quotes and provide the surrounding context from whatever document it was plucked from, we can discuss it.