| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Ray Martinez" |
| Date: |
10 Nov 2005 08:17:24 PM |
| Object: |
Closed Formal Debate: Budikka v. Ray Martinez |
RESOLVE: Does the God of the Bible exist ? Conversely; Is there any
volume of evidence to the contrary ?
Budikka will argue against the existence.
Ray Martinez will argue for the existence.
Each response will be no longer than 30 kilobytes.
5 rounds = 5 responses per opponent.
Up to 5 days per response after opponents response is posted.
**********************************************
Ray Martinez: I am a Protestant Evangelical Paulinist; a life-long
student of Dr. Gene Scott Ph.D. Stanford University. I have been
involved in two formal Internet debates; one with Darwinist Richard
Clayton here:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4860db9f56264e15
The other; whether the God of the Bible designed the Great Pyramid or
not here:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=93010
I argued under pseudonym "Willowtree".
**********************************************
OPENING AGRUMENT:
In addition to the IIDB Great Pyramid evidence in the link above, I
also add these links:
http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=142770&postcount=1
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=25&t=1305&m=1
I also used a pseudonym "Herepton" but I signed with my real name.
The point of the Great Pyramid:
Reveals technology impossible to exist in 2700 BC. We know, on average,
each block weighs 20 to 30 tons each, yet they were cut with "optical
precision".
http://www.answers.com/topic/great-pyramid-of-giza
"A wonder of the ancient world in their own right, the casing stones of
the Great Pyramid were cut with optical precision many of which being
off of true plane for their entire surface area by as little as 1/50th
of an inch as well as being fit so perfectly together that the tip of a
knife could not be inserted between their joints along any edge even to
this day." source: E. Raymond Capt and Flinders Petrie.
http://pyramids.nipl.net/pyramids/ch10.html
The point is no civilization that just emerged from the Stone Age even
knew about optical precision; nor could they produce such a wonderous
acheivement. Evolution says mankind slowly progresseed from animal
dumbness TO modern ultra intelligence. The GP was built no earlier than
2700 BC. Evolutionary claims are falsified since we cannot today
duplicate the GP and its construction wonders. This perfectly evidences
the Biblical claim that Adamkind was created full grown and
intelligent. Also that generation lived hundreds of years and possessed
a commensurate amount of intelligence persons living that lond would
expect to have. Evolution cannot explain this intelligence undulation -
yet the Bible does: perfectly.
The internal passage system perfectly matches central Biblical claims.
IOW, BEFORE the Bible was actually written God had the GP built to
visually incorporate what was yet to be written.
Isaiah 46:10
"Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the
things that are not yet done"
IOW, the GP declares the end from the beginning; it is the ancient
times declaration of things not yet done.
Refer to the IIDB debate where I explained how the physical interior
passage system perfectly matches EVERY major Biblical claim.
*********************************
http://members.tripod.com/conifer.co/pyramid_scripture.htm
http://www.egyptarchive.co.uk/his_html/smyth_20.html
Isaiah 19: 19, 20
"In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt,
and there will be a monument to the LORD at its border. It will be a
sign and a witness to the LORD Almighty in the land of Egypt. When the
people cry to the LORD for help against those who oppress them, he will
send them a savior who will rescue them."
The first link/chart is the original work of Dr. Rutherford and is
found in his "Pyramidology" volumes of books.
The claim is that the height of the GP, that is from the ground to the
top of the original summit platform is EXACTLY 5449 Pyramid inches
(PI). Pyramid inch = 1/500,000,000 of polar diameter of Earth, IOW
polar diameter inch = 1/1000th of a British inch longer than the
British inch. source: Sputnik orbiting satellite 1957.
How did ancient men in 2700 BC know the exact dimensions of the Earth
and its shape ? We only found out the EXACT dimensions in 1957.
Evolution is falsified.
Hebrew letters have numeric value and the grand total of the verses
which speak of the GP add up to exactly 5449 - the height of the GP.
The GP today is no longer 5449 PI" in height. Vandalism and weather
have reduced its height even though vestigial remnants of the 203rd
course/original summit platform still exist.
IF the GP was indeed 5449 PI" in height as left by the buliders then
the object as described in Isaiah 19 is the GP.
Isaiah 19 says "in the midst of the land of Egypt and on the border
thereof"
NILE-DELTA QUADRANT
This link contains a diagram of the quadrant:
http://www.egyptarchive.co.uk/his_html/smyth_20.html
Map produced by the United States Coast Survey, Henry Mitchell 1868
source: Peter Lemesurier, "Decoding the Great Pyramid"
Link plate and diagram produced by Prof. Piazzi Smyth, Astronomer Royal
of Scotland.
Dr. E. Raymond Capt M.A., A.I.A., F.S.A., SCOT
"The Great Pyramid Decoded" [Artisan Sales, 1971]
Quote:
"The Great Pyramid of Gizeh stands at the geometric center and yet at
the southern extremity of the Quadrant. The southern extremity, being
the northenmost edge of the Giza plateau where the Great Pyramid stands
looking over the fan-shaped sector of Egypt, was in ancient times at
the boundary where the cultivated land touched the desert. This plateau
was called Giza, which is the Arabic word for edge or border. It was
this unusual location that first suggested the Great Pyramid was the
monument spoken of in the Scriptures by Isaiah the prophet. Since the
full official name of the Pyramid, the Great Pyramid of Giza, means, in
English, the Great Pyramid of the Border, the answer to the apparently
contradictory defintion of Isaiah is found in the Great Pyramid. The
only spot on the face of the Earth that completely answers this
description, both geometrically and geographically, is the precise
place where the Great Pyramid actually stands. END CAPT EXCERPT.
The point is that the GP sits on the border of Upper and Lower Egypt
and in the exact center of the Nile-Delta Quadrant.
In Isaiah's day, the border of Upper and Lower Egypt is where the GP
was built, thus it is in the "midst of the land of Egypt and on the
border thereof".
Height of GP:
Dr. Adam Rutherford F.R.A.S., F.R.G.S., in Egypt 1925, 1950, 1963-5
Quote:
"The figure of 5448.7360 PI is the height of the GP geometrically
derived. Deduct the Rectification Factor multiplied by the tangent of
the Pyramidic 'pi' angle (Casing angle 51- 51-14.3). Expressed
arithmetically:
5813.0125-364.2765=5448.7360 PI"
The Pyramid's summit platform therefore lies within the 5449th PI above
the pavement level at the base and in the Bible this number is the
identification number of Isaiah 19:19,20" END RUTHERFORD QUOTE.
The Isaiah verses (19 and 20) speak of a sign and a witness to the
LORD. Only one object sits at the border of Upper and Lower Egypt AND
in the exact middle of the Nile-Delta Quadrant thus fulfilling the
identification of the object as the GP.
Its height perfectly matches the grand total of the Isaiah verses:
5449.
This is spectacular confirmation of Divine origin.
The God of the Bible exists. Literary confirmed by physical (Great
Pyramid).
Didn't know any of this ? = proof of the invisible Devil just as the
Bible claims - either way the Bible is proven true.
Ray Martinez
.
|
|
| User: "Ebola outreach missionaries" |
|
| Title: Re: Closed Formal Debate: Budikka v. Ray Martinez |
10 Nov 2005 11:19:31 PM |
|
|
"Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@yahoo.com> suddenly spluttered:
RESOLVE: Does the God of the Bible exist ? Conversely; Is there any
volume of evidence to the contrary ?
Non-Geocentrism. Game over.
------------------------------------------------
Conflict over the exact will/purpose/nature of God cannot ever be
resolved, since there are no facts to go on.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: Closed Formal Debate: Budikka v. Ray Martinez |
10 Nov 2005 10:32:20 PM |
|
|
"Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1131653844.650007.198680@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Subject: Closed Formal Debate: Budikka v. Ray Martinez
So you lost. Take yer fuckin' ball and leave.
--
Doc Smartass XP - New Interface, Same Old *****
Brought to you by...
The Catholic Church. No, we don't like gays.
But if you're a pedo, you're PRIEST material!!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Martinez" |
|
| Title: Re: Closed Formal Debate: Budikka v. Ray Martinez |
10 Nov 2005 08:24:41 PM |
|
|
The point is no civilization that just emerged from the Stone Age even
knew about optical precision; nor could they produce such a wonderous
achievement. Evolution says mankind slowly progresseed from animal
dumbness TO modern ultra intelligence. The GP was built no earlier than
2700 BC. Evolutionary claims are falsified since we cannot today
duplicate the GP and its construction wonders. This perfectly evidences
the Biblical claim that Adamkind was created full grown and
intelligent. Also that generation lived hundreds of years and possessed
a commensurate amount of intelligence persons living that long would
expect to have. Evolution cannot explain this intelligence undulation -
yet the Bible does: perfectly.
Spelling corrections made in above paragraph.
Ray Martinez
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: Closed Formal Debate: Budikka v. Ray Martinez |
10 Nov 2005 10:41:31 PM |
|
|
"Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1131654281.020709.237100@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
The point is no civilization that just emerged from the Stone Age even
knew about optical precision; nor could they produce such a wonderous
achievement. Evolution says mankind slowly progresseed from animal
dumbness TO modern ultra intelligence. The GP was built no earlier than
2700 BC. Evolutionary claims are falsified since we cannot today
duplicate the GP and its construction wonders. This perfectly evidences
the Biblical claim that Adamkind was created full grown and
intelligent. Also that generation lived hundreds of years and possessed
a commensurate amount of intelligence persons living that long would
expect to have. Evolution cannot explain this intelligence undulation -
yet the Bible does: perfectly.
Spelling corrections made in above paragraph.
Ray Martinez
Who is going to ensure that you stick to the rules? Also has Budikka agreed
to the terms of the debate you are proposing?
Klazmon.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Closed Formal Debate: Budikka v. Ray Martinez |
11 Nov 2005 02:50:07 AM |
|
|
Ray Martinez wrote:
The point is no civilization that just emerged from the Stone Age
even knew about optical precision; nor could they produce such a
wonderous achievement. Evolution says mankind slowly progresseed
from animal dumbness TO modern ultra intelligence. The GP was built
no earlier than 2700 BC. Evolutionary claims are falsified since we
cannot today duplicate the GP and its construction wonders. This
perfectly evidences the Biblical claim that Adamkind was created
full grown and intelligent. Also that generation lived hundreds of
years and possessed
a commensurate amount of intelligence persons living that long
would expect to have. Evolution cannot explain this intelligence
undulation - yet the Bible does: perfectly.
Spelling corrections made in above paragraph.
Ray Martinez
Too bad you never bothered with correcting the facts.
Any number of experimental archeaologists working
with replicas of surveying tools as found of tomb
paintings have found out with care and good eyesight
can easily make measurements accurate enough to
align such things like the Great Pyramids with precision.
Egyptian builders were building complex works centuries
before the pyramids.
Stonehenge was very well aligned and built a thousand
years before the Pyramids, Aztecs and Mayans had
reinvented such techniques independently also.
We can create pyramids like Gizas if we wanted and
in fact a thirty foot puyramid was so erected and
photographed while it was done for a Japanese program
on the pyramids. The tools and techniques of ancient
Egypt alone were used.
It turned out quite well, and massive pyramids could
be done by same techniques if somebody wanted to come
up with the money for doing so. Its no mystery.
This pyramidiot nonsense was well debunked 20 years
ago when peole like Van Daniken and Velikoski babbled
these sort of stupid errors.
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Martinez" |
|
| Title: Re: Closed Formal Debate: Budikka v. Ray Martinez |
10 Nov 2005 08:31:21 PM |
|
|
CORRECTION:
Isaiah 19:19,20
"In that day shall there be an altar to the LORD in the midst of the
land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to the LORD.
And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto the LORD of hosts in
the land of Egypt: for they shall cry unto the LORD because of the
oppressors, and he shall send them a saviour, and a great one, and he
shall deliver them."
I meant to use the KJV above and not the other translation in the OP.
Ray Martinez
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Closed Formal Debate: Budikka v. Ray Martinez |
10 Nov 2005 09:36:39 PM |
|
|
On 10 Nov 2005 12:17:24 -0800, "Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@yahoo.com>
wrote:
RESOLVE: Does the God of the Bible exist ? Conversely; Is there any
volume of evidence to the contrary ?
Budikka will argue against the existence.
Ray Martinez will argue for the existence.
:
Ray. I thought that you were going to "argue for the exstence", yet
all you have done in the snipped garbage, is to display your sheer
ignorance, telling us why your wrong opinion is that certain things
are "impossible".
This in no way even attempts to argue FOR the existence of this
fairy-tale being.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Closed Formal Debate: Budikka v. Ray Martinez |
16 Nov 2005 08:50:12 AM |
|
|
On 10 Nov 2005 12:17:24 -0800, "Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@yahoo.com>
wrote:
RESOLVE: Does the God of the Bible exist ? Conversely; Is there any
volume of evidence to the contrary ?
Budikka will argue against the existence.
Ray Martinez will argue for the existence.
Each response will be no longer than 30 kilobytes.
5 rounds = 5 responses per opponent.
Up to 5 days per response after opponents response is posted.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!! You're going to debate Budikka? Dude, you are
so over I don't even want to be near you.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Closed Formal Debate: Budikka v. Ray Martinez |
11 Nov 2005 02:41:05 AM |
|
|
Ray Martinez wrote:
RESOLVE: Does the God of the Bible exist ? Conversely; Is there any
volume of evidence to the contrary ?
Budikka will argue against the existence.
Ray Martinez will argue for the existence.
Each response will be no longer than 30 kilobytes.
5 rounds = 5 responses per opponent.
Up to 5 days per response after opponents response is posted.
**********************************************
Ray Martinez: I am a Protestant Evangelical Paulinist; a life-long
student of Dr. Gene Scott Ph.D. Stanford University. I have been
involved in two formal Internet debates; one with Darwinist Richard
Clayton here:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4860db9f56264e15
The other; whether the God of the Bible designed the Great Pyramid
or not here:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=93010
I argued under pseudonym "Willowtree".
**********************************************
OPENING AGRUMENT:
In addition to the IIDB Great Pyramid evidence in the link above, I
also add these links:
http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=142770&postcount=1
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=25&t=1305&m=1
I also used a pseudonym "Herepton" but I signed with my real name.
The point of the Great Pyramid:
Reveals technology impossible to exist in 2700 BC. We know, on
average, each block weighs 20 to 30 tons each, yet they were cut
with "optical precision".
http://www.answers.com/topic/great-pyramid-of-giza
"A wonder of the ancient world in their own right, the casing stones
of the Great Pyramid were cut with optical precision many of which
being off of true plane for their entire surface area by as little
as 1/50th of an inch as well as being fit so perfectly together that
the tip of a knife could not be inserted between their joints along
any edge even to this day." source: E. Raymond Capt and Flinders
Petrie.
http://pyramids.nipl.net/pyramids/ch10.html
The point is no civilization that just emerged from the Stone Age
even knew about optical precision; nor could they produce such a
wonderous acheivement. Evolution says mankind slowly progresseed
from animal dumbness TO modern ultra intelligence. The GP was built
no earlier than 2700 BC. Evolutionary claims are falsified since we
cannot today duplicate the GP and its construction wonders. This
perfectly evidences the Biblical claim that Adamkind was created
full grown and intelligent. Also that generation lived hundreds of
years and possessed
a commensurate amount of intelligence persons living that lond
would expect to have. Evolution cannot explain this intelligence
undulation - yet the Bible does: perfectly.
The internal passage system perfectly matches central Biblical
claims. IOW, BEFORE the Bible was actually written God had the GP
built to visually incorporate what was yet to be written.
Isaiah 46:10
"Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the
things that are not yet done"
IOW, the GP declares the end from the beginning; it is the ancient
times declaration of things not yet done.
Refer to the IIDB debate where I explained how the physical interior
passage system perfectly matches EVERY major Biblical claim.
*********************************
http://members.tripod.com/conifer.co/pyramid_scripture.htm
http://www.egyptarchive.co.uk/his_html/smyth_20.html
Isaiah 19: 19, 20
"In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of
Egypt, and there will be a monument to the LORD at its border. It
will be a sign and a witness to the LORD Almighty in the land of
Egypt. When the people cry to the LORD for help against those who
oppress them, he will send them a savior who will rescue them."
The first link/chart is the original work of Dr. Rutherford and is
found in his "Pyramidology" volumes of books.
The claim is that the height of the GP, that is from the ground to
the top of the original summit platform is EXACTLY 5449 Pyramid
inches (PI). Pyramid inch = 1/500,000,000 of polar diameter of
Earth, IOW polar diameter inch = 1/1000th of a British inch longer
than the British inch. source: Sputnik orbiting satellite 1957.
How did ancient men in 2700 BC know the exact dimensions of the
Earth and its shape ? We only found out the EXACT dimensions in
1957. Evolution is falsified.
Hebrew letters have numeric value and the grand total of the verses
which speak of the GP add up to exactly 5449 - the height of the GP.
The GP today is no longer 5449 PI" in height. Vandalism and weather
have reduced its height even though vestigial remnants of the 203rd
course/original summit platform still exist.
IF the GP was indeed 5449 PI" in height as left by the buliders then
the object as described in Isaiah 19 is the GP.
Isaiah 19 says "in the midst of the land of Egypt and on the border
thereof"
NILE-DELTA QUADRANT
This link contains a diagram of the quadrant:
http://www.egyptarchive.co.uk/his_html/smyth_20.html
Map produced by the United States Coast Survey, Henry Mitchell 1868
source: Peter Lemesurier, "Decoding the Great Pyramid"
Link plate and diagram produced by Prof. Piazzi Smyth, Astronomer
Royal of Scotland.
Dr. E. Raymond Capt M.A., A.I.A., F.S.A., SCOT
"The Great Pyramid Decoded" [Artisan Sales, 1971]
Quote:
"The Great Pyramid of Gizeh stands at the geometric center and yet
at the southern extremity of the Quadrant. The southern extremity,
being the northenmost edge of the Giza plateau where the Great
Pyramid stands looking over the fan-shaped sector of Egypt, was in
ancient times at the boundary where the cultivated land touched the
desert. This plateau was called Giza, which is the Arabic word for
edge or border. It was this unusual location that first suggested
the Great Pyramid was the monument spoken of in the Scriptures by
Isaiah the prophet. Since the full official name of the Pyramid, the
Great Pyramid of Giza, means, in English, the Great Pyramid of the
Border, the answer to the apparently contradictory defintion of
Isaiah is found in the Great Pyramid. The only spot on the face of
the Earth that completely answers this description, both
geometrically and geographically, is the precise place where the
Great Pyramid actually stands. END CAPT EXCERPT.
The point is that the GP sits on the border of Upper and Lower Egypt
and in the exact center of the Nile-Delta Quadrant.
In Isaiah's day, the border of Upper and Lower Egypt is where the GP
was built, thus it is in the "midst of the land of Egypt and on the
border thereof".
Height of GP:
Dr. Adam Rutherford F.R.A.S., F.R.G.S., in Egypt 1925, 1950, 1963-5
Quote:
"The figure of 5448.7360 PI is the height of the GP geometrically
derived. Deduct the Rectification Factor multiplied by the tangent
of the Pyramidic 'pi' angle (Casing angle 51- 51-14.3). Expressed
arithmetically:
5813.0125-364.2765=5448.7360 PI"
The Pyramid's summit platform therefore lies within the 5449th PI
above the pavement level at the base and in the Bible this number is
the identification number of Isaiah 19:19,20" END RUTHERFORD QUOTE.
The Isaiah verses (19 and 20) speak of a sign and a witness to the
LORD. Only one object sits at the border of Upper and Lower Egypt
AND in the exact middle of the Nile-Delta Quadrant thus fulfilling
the identification of the object as the GP.
Its height perfectly matches the grand total of the Isaiah verses:
5449.
This is spectacular confirmation of Divine origin.
The God of the Bible exists. Literary confirmed by physical (Great
Pyramid).
Didn't know any of this ? = proof of the invisible Devil just as the
Bible claims - either way the Bible is proven true.
Ray Martinez
IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and consciousness.
B. God has free will.
C. God is the creator of all.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.
These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, and Hinduism.
Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually
logically derivable from the claimed attribute of
omnipotence and so aren't not truly independent
attributes, and may be considered special aspects
of omnipotence.
There are other attributes of god, that he is the
only such god, that he is is immortal and that
god has always existed that are not important
for this discussion and for now, can be ignored.
They are secondary arguments and are for the most
part not foundational or truly necessary, except
those that can be logically derived from the
attributes listed above.
A CLASS OF GODS
It is important to note here that this is a
definition not for a particular god, but an
entire class of gods.
Sub-theories about god are not important here.
Christianity claims one may attain salvation
only through Jesus, Islam claims the Christian
dogma that Jesus was the son of god is
blasphemous.
Ideas like this though, are of little importance
to the overarching and general claims made for a
personal, creator, omni-everything god. I have
coined a term, The Grand God of Grand Theologies
for this sort of god, this sort of theological
system of expansive claims for god.
Grand theologies are those theologies that have
adopted this class of god as their basic
attributes concerning the nature of god. But it
is important to remember here that what is being
discussed here is a class of gods, not particular
gods or specific gods.
THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand
Theologies holding to this basic class of god as
their basic definitions of what god is at god's
most basic level.
A big problem with this class of gods is, it
collapses rather easily into internal self
contradiction.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by
Epicurus in about the third century BCE.
Today's formulation is:
A. God is defined as omnipotent;
B. and as omnibenevolent.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not omnipotent as claimed.
E. Or God is not omnibenevolent as claimed.
F. Or god is neither omnipotent or
omnibenevolent.
G. Or god is not existant.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
The free will defense of the problem of evil goes
back to St. Augustine who popularized it. It is
still popular, and is championed most notably
today by Alvin Plantinga, but also by other
theologians.
God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to do
evil. Ability to do evil is less evil than
lacking free will.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DEBUNKED.
God has free will.
God is omnibenevolent, he has a good nature
incapable of doing evil.
A. If god can have free will, and a good nature,
this good nature is not allowed to count
against god's free will.
B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
allowed to count against god's omnipotence.
C. Likewise, man could easily have a god like
free will and a god like good nature.
D. Inabilty then to do evil would no more count
against man's free will than it does for god's
free will.
E. If so, it also counts against god's free will
and god does not have free will as claimed.
F. If god does not have absolute and total free
will, thus free will is not a true necessity
at all.
F. If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and
can give man a god like free will and a
god-like good nature incapable of moral evil,
god must do so or god is not moral, not
omnibenevolent.
G. Evil exists because he allows it to.
So free will does not exist, or it does and we can
have a god like free will and a god like good
nature. Either way, free will cannot explain away
the existence of evil. This free will defense
then, is a failed argument.
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most
religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all
in the Universe and he knows the future of the
Universe and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that
in 13 billion years this Universe will have a
man named John Smith in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and
damned, God will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present
state will have a John Smith, god may then
contemplate the future state of Smith and
decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a
specific personal and will choice made solely
by god.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely
because of a choice made by god. In fact all
moral evil done by creations of god will be
evil and do evil only because of personal and
willful creations of god allowing evil acts
to be done, by direct decision of god.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient
creator god, it is solely and only because
god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal
choices of god, god then is not as defined,
omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
Universe cannot have any free will, not even
in principle. A Universe with a god that
creates all and knows all precludes free will
for all beings god creates in the strongest
possible manner.
The Grand God of Grand
Theology is thus self destroying, it is
incoherent and contradictory as a theory.
THE SITUATION SO FAR.
1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this
Grand God has been defined here with as few
terms as possible.
2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
3. The attempted defense, free will is fatally
flawed. God's good nature and free will doom
claims free will makes evil necessary for man
to have free will.
4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further
doom claims of god's omnibenevolence and
man's free will free will cannot exist for
man. All evil is the direct and knowing
creation of god contradicting claims of
omnibenevolence.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible,
free will cannot be a good quality, much less
necessary.
Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has
collapsed. As has Grand
Theology. As pointed out, this destroys the claims
and viability of an entire class of possible gods,
all secondary and tertiary claims for such a god of
this class also fail, as do dogmas or secondary
or tertiary claims.
If a these Grand Gods cannot exist as defined,
specific gods cannot, nor can claims such as this
or that Grand God sent this or that revelation to
man or some prophet or did this or that.
God is thus disprove and is utter irrelevant
to anything real and existant.
***********
OMNIPOTENCE AND OMNISCIENCE
A. Omnipotence is a special sort of attribute, of
all god's alledged attributes the most
important, because from that attribute you
can derive others attributes, including
omniscience. If one says for purposes of
argument god is omnipotent, one is also
implying god is also omniscient.
B. If god is omnipotent, god must also
specifically have omniscience because if
he does not have omniscience, one
cannot claim omnipotence as an attribute.
C. Thus if god is omnipotent, and created all,
free will is impossible because creation
and omniscience rule out free will as was
shown. In this world god supposedly created,
evil exists. So god must not be
omnibenevolent as claimed as all evil is
created by god if man cannot have free will.
D. So omnipotence and omnibenevolence are thus
mutually exclusive in a world that does in
fact have evil in it. Because omniscience
must exist as part of omnipotence and
omniscience and creatorhood cannot coexist
with free will, omnipotence is also not
compatible with creatorhood and
omnibenevolence. One cannot finesse this
all by ignoringomniscience or abandoning
omniscience.
E. One can only dispose of omniscience by also
explicitly abandoning omnipotence. If god is
defined as being omnibenevolent then a god
that is also allegedly also creator of all
must be evil.
CREATORHOOD OF GOD
F. One may be tempted to abandon the idea god
created all. But that creates some very strong
logical problems also.
G. If god is omnipotent, he can create all. Or
modify any other creation he does not himself
create. No other being or process may create
something god could not modify, because of the
power of his omniscience.
H. So if for purposes of argument, we claim the
Universe was not created by god, he could,
being omnipotent, change that creation for
his own purposes, that of creating good due
to his attribute of omnibenevolence.
We are back to the problem of evil again, he
could change creation such that no evil John
Smiths can exist.
If not he then is sole and only cause for
existence of all evil.
If god is omnibenevolent and omnipotent he
still must modify any creations he did not
himself create to destroy evil, if he can
do so. So claiming god did not create all
does not save the concept of an omnipotent,
omnibenevolent god. It cannot avoid the
problem of evil.
I. Omniscience means we cannot dodge the problem
of evil by stating god did not create the
Universe even if one wished to, nor by limiting
his creatorhood, for example saying god did not
create the original material of the Universe,
but used it as a building material.
J. Thus to get rid of the creator problem, we must
explicitly abandon it all and totally. Only by
doing so could one get around the problem of
creatorhood and omniscience. But if we say god
cannot either create the Universe or modify it
as he finds it, we drop omniscience also,
explicitly. God then turns out not to be
creator of all nor omnipotent as a priori
defined, a contradiction disproving that
a priori defined god.
K. If evil exists because god could change the
Universe he did not create, and he fails to do
so, then all evil exists solely because
of knowing and personal choices god makes.
L. God being omnipotent cannot be controlled by
any other process or other entities. He may
modify any works or creations made by them.
M. If god cannot change creations of others, or
the pre-existing materials of the Universe,
omnipotence in not an attribute of god as
claimed a priori.
M. Omnipotence and creatorhood thus are entangled
in a manner that makes it hard to abandon the
doctrine god created all and if one does, one
must likewise abandon claims of omnipotence.
PRE-EXISTING MATTER AND A PRE-EXISTING UNIVERSE.
The Greek writer Hesiod in his Theogony, starts
with a Universe that is a chaotic void. This
void, through the mysterious property of
emanation, created the first generation of gods,
the Titans, who in their turn created the
Olympians gods who eventually displace the
Titans as rulers of the world.
Likewise, some theologians see Genesis as
representing god creating the world out of a
similar void, a primordial sea god did not
himself create, but used as raw material for
his creations.
God's existence is not explained.
This idea god did not create all still would not
absolve an omnipotent god from responsibility
for evil. The biblical god if he did not create
the Universe and its component materials used them
as he pleased. If that god is omnipotent, then he
bears all responsibility for the world he did
create out of pre-existing material. Whether
this god is said to be eternal or like Hesiod's
Titans was somehow emanated from the chaos of
the void does not materially change any arguments
involving omnipotence, omniscience or
omnibenevolence, if god is said to have these
attributes.
************************************************
ATTRIBUTES OF GOD PART THREE
Does god create the rules, the laws, the logic of
the Universe or not? Is 2 + 2 = 4 something god
set as part of the nature of the Universe or is
that outside and beyond god?
Can god change 2 + 2 to 5?
A. If god did in fact make the rules and laws and
logic of the Universe, god could also change
them as needed.
B. A god that creates the rules.laws and logic
of the world he creates could simply make a
world where man has free will yet freely
chooses only to do moral good. Since god
creates the rules of the Universe, he could
change them in name of omnibenevolence, free
will is perserved and evil is banished. Evil
no longer needs to exist to allow for free
will.
C. If god could do this and fails to, evil
exists solely and only because of god's
failure to use his omnipotence to change
the rules and laws and logic of the Universe
to give man free will and a nature incapable
of doing evil.
D. If god can do this and fails to, god is not
omnibenevolent as claimed, a contradiction
in definitions of god as omnibenevolent and
omnipotent.
E. God in fact since he is essentially the
creator and sustaining cause of all evil
that was, is, and shall be is omni-malevolent.
F. If god does not make the rules, the laws, the
very logic of the Universe, then we have the
problem of what these things are and where
they come from.
G. If these laws and rules and logic limit god,
then god is obviously not omnipotent as
claimed.
H. And thus god is not as claimed, the greatest
thing that can be imagined. Obviously laws
and rules and logic that limit the most
powerful in the Universe are greater
still because they do in fact limit such
a being.
I. If such laws and rules and logic outside and
beyond god do exist, and are thus greater
than god, god is not the greatest thing
imaginable and all ontological 'proofs' that
are based on that basic claim fail.
J. Such rules and laws and logic must exist
outside of god's control and must have always
bee outside his control. If there were ever
in god's control, god cannot have reduced his
power to abandon omnipotence voluntarily.
Omnipotence is an inherent ability. It would
be like abandoning a sense of taste or touch.
This observation forstalls attempts at
apologisms claiming god abandoned any
abilities.
K. And if god could indeed abandon omnipotence,
he must avoid that. After all, he is also
omnibenevolent. Omnibenevolence dictates he
must at all times do the good thing, never an
evil thing. Abandoning omnipotence such that
he could no longer create a world where man
has free will, and a nature incapable of evil
is to allow evil to exist. To abandon
omnipotence is to embrace the proposition
evil is to be allowed to flourish. So any
claims god might have for some greater good
abandoned omnipotence freely are not possible.
L. If god is said to be omnipotent, if he at
anytime gave up any abilities he can no
longer said to be omnipotent, if he actually
gave up any abilities.
M. Since god must have had maximum power and
abilities and cannot have at any time
voluntarilyy relinquished any powers or
abilities, at least in the name of banishing
evil the fact that there are laws and rules
and logic of a universe outside and beyond
god, they aretrulyy beyond and outside god,
and always were.
N. Since such laws and rules and laws are outside
god, and always were so,and are properties of
the Universe, the Universe is likewise outside
and beyond god, with its laws and rules and
logic.
O. Since the Universe and its laws and rules and
logic are outside and beyond god, god is not
as, creator of all.
P. Since the Universe no longer relies on god for
its purportedexistencee, nor on god for the
existencee of its laws and rules and logic,
god is no longer a necessary being. If there
are things that have necessaryexistencee, it
would have to be the Universe as whole, or
possibly its laws, its rules or its logic,
or a subset of these rules or laws or the
underlying causes of these things, if any.
None were created by god or can be modified
by god.
Q. If these laws and rules and logic could be
modified by god, then the rules and laws
and logic of the Universe would have been
modified to enexistencece of evil, and must
be modified this if god is actually
omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
R. God then is not omnipotent, or not
omnibenevolent, or is neither, or
does not exist.
THE ATTRIBUTES AND NATURE OF GOD IN LIGHT OF THE
ABOVE EXAMINATION OF GOD
Thus the idea god is omnipotent, omnibenevolent,
and creator of all, clash again
and mutually self-destruct over the issue of
evil'existencece. This raises
serious questions on the nature of the Universe
that cannot be as Grand Theology
claims it is.
A. We have shown god cannot have created the
Universe.
B. We have shown god does not create the laws,
rules and laws of that Universe.
C. That god is thus not omnipotent as these laws
limit him.
D. That god is not the greatest imaginable thing.
E. That ontological proofs of god'existencece
based on claims god is the greatest thing
imaginable are failed arguments.
F. That god cannot be a necessary being, as
claimed.
G. That any possible claims god might for some
reason abandon or limit any abilities cannot
be true in any attempt to avoid this line of
inquiry. Nor can that approach derail logical
examination of consequences of Grand
Theology's overarching claims to god's
attributes or nature.
The fact that god iallegedlyly omnibenevolent and
evil exists, demonstrates god cannot make the
rules of the world. 2 + 2 = 4 because that is
the nature of the Universe, not something god
created.Because if god did create the rules and
laws and logic of the Universe, and was
omnibenevolent, we should have no signs of evil,
especially moral evil of man, Satan, demons and
devils.
But if one admits to that, Many other important
claims collapse, many other arguments about god
and his attributes and nature no longer are
viable. Some of these claims, god's creation
of the Universe are among the oldest and most
basic of theology.
Ontological proofs started with Anselm in the
10th century, all of these now must be abandoned.
The necessary being argument, long a rhetorical
argument is now finally dead.
Free will defenses against the problem of evil
opened up a line of attack here that is powerful
and very final.
**************************************************
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Closed Formal Debate: Budikka v. Ray Martinez |
19 Nov 2005 09:14:31 PM |
|
|
Ray Martinez wrote:
RESOLVE: Does the God of the Bible exist ? Conversely; Is there any
volume of evidence to the contrary ?
Budikka will argue against the existence.
Ray Martinez will argue for the existence.
Each response will be no longer than 30 kilobytes.
5 rounds =3D 5 responses per opponent.
Up to 5 days per response after opponents response is posted.
**********************************************
I apologize for my tardy response to this opening argument, but my
opponent neitehr emailed me nor did me the courtesy of posting a
message informing me he had started this debate until November 18th and
so I only learned of it today.
Note that by entering into this debate, I am not specifically agreeing
to Martinez's terms above, which were not even discussed with me, let
alone agreed upon. The proposal I made was for each of us to have
three submissions, each of 20-25K, with no time limit on posting each
submission.
However, I will try to adhere to his unilateral schedule from this
point on, despite his significantly less than decent approach to this
enterprise, and especially since his material is so poor. I will not,
however, hold him to the five-day limit.
[snip Martinez personal intro]
Martinez: "[The Great Pyramid (GP)] Reveals technology impossible to
exist in 2700 BC. We know, on average, each block weighs 20 to 30 tons
each, yet they were cut with "optical precision"."
20 to 30 tons each? According to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyramid (Wikipedia), the total
weight of the pyramid is 5.9 million tonnes, and the number of blocks
is 2.4 million. Math isn't my greatest skill, but this seems to me to
be significantly less than 3 tonnes per block. So Martinez is already
an order of magnitude away from the truth in his opening argument.
Martinez: "'A wonder of the ancient world in their own right, the
casing stones of the Great Pyramid were cut with optical precision"
Martinez needs to define what he means by "optical precision" and
define how the cutting of stones at Gizeh is somehow miraculously
better than the cutting of stones at other archaeological sites such
as, for example, Tiwanaku in Bolivia
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiwanaku). Or is he claiming that a god
built that, too?
Martinez: " many of which being off of true plane for their entire
surface area by as little as 1/50th of an inch as well as being fit so
perfectly together that the tip of a knife could not be inserted
between their joints along any edge even to this day." source: E.
Raymond Capt and Flinders Petrie."
I have seen these arguments before, but I have never seen scientific
support for them. I still see no such support. According to
Wikipedia, "The most precisely cut stone blocks were reserved for the
outside. Once in place their corners were smoothed to give an almost
shiny outer appearance of the pyramid. For the inner core, the blocks
were cut with less precision, since there are gaps big enough to
introduce an arm. These gaps were filled with rubble, mixed with
gypsum. Recent studies by Gilles Dormion and Jean Patrice Goidin
suggest the existence of cavities filled with sand, that could amount
to 10 to 15% of the volume of the pyramid. This could reduce the
amount of work required of the construction."
Is this the work of a god? Clearly not!
In addition to evidently and gullibly swallowing every fringe claim on
the Internet, Martinez is once again employing his well-known MO of
arguing from incredulity. Because *he* cannot see how the pyramids
were built, and because *he* thinks people 5,000 years ago were stupid,
then a god must have built the pyramids. But the fact remains that
pyramid was built for Khufu as ancient graffiti confirms, and we even
know who supervised the construction: Hemionu.
The Great Pyramid (GP) dates to about ~2500BC. Since there is no
evidence whatsoever of flood marking or damage, it single-handedly
refutes the Biblical claim that there was a global flood, and Petrie
himself determined that the pyramid was far from perfect:
"Petrie found the pyramid is oriented 4' West of North, the second
pyramid is similarly oriented. Petrie also found a different
orientation in the core and in the casing ( - 5' 16" =B1 10")....This
deviation from the north in the core, correspond to the position of the
stars b-Ursae Minoris and z-Ursae Majoris about 3,000 years ago, taking
into account the spin of the axis of the Earth. A study by Egyptologist
Kate Spence shows how the change orientation of 8 pyramids corresponds
with change of position of those stars through time, this would date
the start of the construction of the pyramid at 2467 BC."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyramid
The fact that the four sides of the base have a mean error of 50 mm in
length and 12 seconds in angle from a perfect square and that the core
was mainly made of rough blocks of low quality limestone taken from a
quarry to the south is pretty much proof-positive that no god made it.
Martinez appears to be using material that was originally published in
a book called "The Great Pyramid: Why was it Built? And who Built it?"
The date of publication? 1859 - oddly enough, the same year Darwin
published "On The Origin..."! But the fact is that there is nothing in
professional peer-reviewed archaeological literature to my knowledge to
indicate anything about the pyramids that could not have been achieved
by the artifice of dedicated humans.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/1915mpyramid.html
http://pharos.bu.edu/Egypt/Wonders/pyramid.html
No god signed the pyramids to indicate "authorship". Kent Hovind,
creationism's leading light(-weight) claims they were built by Noah (or
Adam). Martinez needs to explain how his "theory" refutes such
competing claims, including a claim, for example, that the pyramid was
built by an advanced race of aliens from another planet as opposed to
being built by a god. Clearly it doesn't, so even if it were not
fatally flawed, it would fail to support his claim as evidence for the
existence of a god.
There is not a single word in the Bible about the pyramids. For all we
know, none of the writers of the Bible had even heard of them. It's
assinine, to say the least, to claim that such a work, purportedly
carried out by a god, would not even merit a definite mention in that
god's own handbook.
The pyramids, while definitely long-lasting, are not permanent.
Indeed, anyone who looks at even photographs of them can see how they
have started to deteriorate. The casing stones are gone. The
capstones (pyramidions) are gone. The pyramids are not built from
miraculous material, but from locally available limestone, some of
which has cut marks or other marks on it from being worked by humans.
There was a quarry not that far away from which the rocks came. The
rocks were hauled on barges, some of which have been found.
Limestone is hardly the most durable material on the planet. Would a
perfect god build something so imperfect? Would a god not have built
them from something much more durable and unique - some material that
neither we nor the ancient Egyptians could duplicate? Why would a god
build a testament to himself which was so poorly distinguished that the
majority of humans, particularly the ones most qualified to judge, are
convinced that humans built it?
Can a god not do better than this? Can a god not make its presence
known much more definitively, much less ambiguously than this? Why not
write his existence in the stars, or in everyone's genetic code? Why
not personally speak to us at birth so that every human on the planet
starts out with precisely the same unambiguous certainty of the same
god? To claim something as simple, as ambiguous, and as amateurish as
the Great Pyramid is evidence of a god is an insult to any god.
And what message does it convey, other than ambiguity? If the
scriptures were inscribed inside the pyramid in some way impossible for
humanity to duplicate, in a language no one had ever seen before, but
which everyone could translate on sight, that would strongly suggest
something, but this is not what we find. The only inscriptions inside
the pyramid are graffiti, and these confirm that it was intended as
Khufu's tomb.
Martinez not only fails to make a case for his claims, he fails to even
address, let alone rebut, the myriad objections to his claims. How
does he explain a steadily growing pyramid-building tradition
throughout Egyptian history which started out very humbly with mastabas
- simple slabs made of stone (as represented by the mastabet el
Fara'un), or of clay bricks which covered tombs in the ground? How
does he explain the apparent tie-in of pyramid construction to certain
stars, including an apparent alignment of the three pyramids at Gizeh
with the stars in Orion's belt? Is this "god" telling us he's really
an alien from a planet circling a star out there?
These clay bricks would be several rows deep and slope slightly on the
sides, and eventually they progressed to stepped mastabas and then to
stepped pyramids (as represented by the pyramid of Netjerykhet at
Saqqara), which led to the smooth-sided pyramids, culminating in the
examples that most people think of, when the word 'pyramid' comes up.
These pyramid-building skills seemed to literally reach their peak in
the pyramids at Gizeh - the last ones to be built of stone - and then
fade away as we approach relatively modern history. This is conclusive
of a continual tradition of pyramid building and improvement followed
by a decline in parallel with the decline of the Egyptian civilization.
http://www.friesian.com/tombs.htm
Their methods are on display for all to see at the pyramid of Huni at
Maidum. This monument began life as a seven-step pyramid, was altered
to an eight-step, and finally filled in on the edges to smooth the
steps. However, the design
was faulty and was not built on solid ground, so the outer casing
collapsed down the sides. Do you want to claim this as the handiwork
of a supreme being?
http://www.parascope.com/en/pyramid2.htm
Because of the collapse of Huni's pyramid, another nearby pyramid being
built for Snofru was changed - thus it became the unique and easily
recognizable "bent pyramid" - the angle of its slope changes about
halfway up, to a much shallower angle, and the building technique was
improved.
All the Egyptians needed was plenty of "people-power", some ropes, and
some sleds. The sleds ran over a series of logs embedded in the sand
"lubricated" with water. If you can prove the Egyptians had no wood,
hemp, or water, you might be able to make a case for divine origin of
pyramids! But I doubt it.
The base for the pyramids was solid limestone rock. The Egyptians
would clear the base area, flood it with water, use the surface of the
water as a level, and excavate and smooth portions of the rock below it
according to how far it was from the surface of the water. When they
drained off the water it was an easy matter to complete the leveling of
the whole area according to these initial marker points.
The individual building stones were so small that a group of twenty men
could have hauled one of them into place along ramps, which were built
up the sides of the pyramid as the pyramid itself was built. The ramps
were made from rubble and mud. After the pyramid was finished, the
ramps were dismantled.
The only really huge stones are the ones covering the great gallery,
and these are still not so huge that humans could not have moved them.
A god would surely have used rocks that were truly unmanageable by
humans - or even built the pyramid out of a solid piece of rock taken
from somewhere else on the planet to show that humans could not
possibly have done it. Unless that god was a deceitful one, who wished
to mislead people. Is *this* the god Martinez seeks to establish?
Can Martinez work into his "theory" an explanation of how it was that
the ancient meso-Americans built pyramids at Teotihuacan, one of which
is the equal of the Great Pyramid (the pyramid of Cholula exceeds GP in
volume)? Can he, for that matter, explain the Teotihuacan calendar,
which scholars understand to have begun on August 12, 3114 BC, long
before the worldwide flood of Biblical myth? If all peoples died in
the flood, how could the Teotihuacan peoples have kept up their
calendar?
Martinez: "Evolutionary claims are falsified since we cannot today
duplicate the GP and its construction wonders."
Evolution? I thought the debate was over the non-existence of a god?
Did Martinez actually write his material for this debate or appropriate
it from elsewhere and then neglect to edit it properly?
Martinez: "This perfectly evidences the Biblical claim that Adamkind
was created full grown and intelligent."
From dirt? There is no evidence of this since humankind are
carbon-based and dirt is silicon based. Genetic evidence shows that
"Adam" never met "Eve"
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/999030.stm), but the claim
Martinez seems to be making here - that Adam was created with the same
kind of knowledge we have today - is patent nonsense! If it's true,
how come they did not have fine clothes that we have today? How come
they lived in caves? How come they were crudely chipping weapons and
tools from stone?
Martinez: "Also that generation lived hundreds of years and possessed a
commensurate amount of intelligence persons living that lond would
expect to have. Evolution cannot explain this intelligence undulation
- yet the Bible does: perfectly."
When Martinez can support these rather bizarre claims, I'll consider if
they merit a direct response, but I will not dignify what is evidently
nothing more than rampant adolescent assertion with any better response
than this.
Martinez: "The internal passage system perfectly matches central
Biblical claims. IOW, BEFORE the Bible was actually written God had
the GP built to visually incorporate what was yet to be written.
When Martinez can support these claims, I'll consider if they merit a
direct response.
Martinez: "Refer to the IIDB debate where I explained how the physical
interior passage system perfectly matches EVERY major Biblical claim."
When Martinez can support these claims, I'll consider if they merit a
direct response.
Martinez: "http://members.tripod.com/conifer.co/pyramid_scripture.htm"
This refers to the so-called "pyramid inch" which is a farcical
concept. Since we do not have the exact dimensions of the original
pyramid, and since text can be chosen and manipulated at will, this
claim is inane. The same claim can be made for modern structures, such
as the Petronas Towers, if you are willing to put in some time
carefully devising your claims. Even if it were true, it does not
support a claim for the existence of a god. Humans can be very
inventive.
Martinez: "http://www.egyptarchive.co.uk/his_html/smyth_20.html"
I've seen this claim before. Given that Martinez appears to have
appropriated Piazzi Smyth's claims for the constructor of the pyramid,
it's hardly surprising he appropriates another of his claims here, but
it is, once again, untrue: http://www.catchpenny.org/pyramid.html
Martinez: "Isaiah 19: 19, 20"
When Martinez can demonstrate that the rest of Isaiah 19 has come true
or has been true at some point in the past, then he might try making
the argument for these verses relating to the pyramid (but he will
still have to support it since the word "altar" used here is precisely
the same word as is used everywhere else in the OT). However, until
and unless he can show Egyptians fighting against Egyptians *and* a
cruel king ruling over them *and* the Mediterranean drying up *and* the
rivers drying up *and* plant life withering *and* Egyptians being out
of work *and* five cities in Egypt speaking the language of the land of
Canaan, then this becomes yet another of his unsupported claims which
fails.
Martinez: "The claim is that the height of the GP, that is from the
ground to the top of the original summit platform"
There was no summit platform. There was a pyramidion.
Martinez: " is EXACTLY 5449 Pyramid inches (PI).
We have no "EXACT" measurements of the pyramid or of the polar diameter
of the Earth, which is not a fixed value, but changes.
Martinez: "Pyramid inch =3D 1/500,000,000 of polar diameter of Earth, IOW
polar diameter inch =3D 1/1000th of a British inch longer than the
British inch. source: Sputnik orbiting satellite 1957."
I await with breathless anticipation Martinez's explanation as to what
the relationship is between Sputnik 1 and the polar diameter of the
Earth is. In the meantime, the pyramid was measured in cubits, not
inches, pyramid inches, or anything else. It was designed to be 280
cubits tall and 440 cubits across the base. The cubit is 20.63 inches,
which divided into the 280 gives us 5,776.4 "pyramid inches" not 5,449.
This destroys his entire argument since dividing the one by the other
gives 1.06, which is 6/100ths difference, not the 1/1000 difference he
blindly assumes.
Martinez: "How did ancient men in 2700 BC know the exact dimensions of
the Earth and its shape ?"
Again Martinez's lack of grasp of what the ancients knew is not
evidence of any god. At best, it's no more than evidence of his own
ignorance.
Martinez: "We only found out the EXACT dimensions in 1957."
Martinez needs to establish this, since I'm long past taking his word
for anything. Given that Eratosthenes knew it 2-300 years BC tends to
suggest Martinez isn't completely knowledgeable as to what he himself
is talking about.
Martinez: "Evolution is falsified."
Not hardly. This debate is about the existence of a god, so from
whence is this non-sequitur derived? Is Martinez once again
appropriating material from elsewhere without taking the time to read
it and edit it? Where in the "RESOLVE" portion of his opening message
(reproduced at the start of my message above) is evolution even raised?
I would appreciate it if Martinez would keep his eye on the ball in
future messages.
[Snipped rest of material relating to refuted 5449 argument and refuted
geographic center argument]
Martinez: "This is spectacular confirmation of Divine origin."
Not at all. I await valid support for this claim (as opposed to
tedious, juvenile, debunked pyramidology) in Martinez's next
submission. Hopefully it will be somehting new and interesting.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Martinez" |
|
| Title: Re: Closed Formal Debate: Budikka v. Ray Martinez |
19 Nov 2005 02:34:17 AM |
|
|
Where is Buddika ?
Ray
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Closed Formal Debate: Budikka v. Ray Martinez |
27 Nov 2005 12:27:10 PM |
|
|
Ray Martinez wrote:
Where is Buddika ?
Ray
Still waiting on you responding. It's been over five days now,. Does
this mean you have conceded the debate or does it mean you have relaxed
your unilateral five-day rule in this debate you began without even
discussing it with me?
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Closed Formal Debate: Budikka v. Ray Martinez |
05 Dec 2005 03:04:07 AM |
|
|
You opened this debate without even informing me of it. You set terms
without discussing them with me. I found out about it only by accident
but even then, I responded that same day. You have failed to answer my
response or competently respond to any overture regarding your
unilateral terms of debate. I informed you here
(http://tinyurl.com/dsw2q) on November 27th:
"If I do not see a postive response from you in the debate thread by
this time next week, either to respond fully to my initial reply or to
assert that you will take up this debate before the end of the year, I
will have no choice but to declare that you have conceded."
Therefore you've conceded the debate due to your laughable opening
statement, your demonstrated inability to rebut my very first response,
and your cowardice in arranging a date upon which the debate might be
resumed..
This makes three threads where I've responded to your messages and you
have fled from them:
http://tinyurl.com/bmxt7 (this so-called debate that you've now lost)
http://tinyurl.com/eyekk (your straw-man lie that Darwin was a racist)
http://tinyurl.com/dsw2q (your lie that no one can prove
macroevolution)
You're now a demonstrated liar, a fraud, and a coward. Your
comprehensive lack of ability to support your juvenile claims and your
thorough lack of integrity in these exchanges is now manifest.
In short, you're utterly pathetic and certainly not worth any more of
my time.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
