God exists

What god are we talking about again? For the sake of any reasonable investigation, questioning what god a Jew in an accepted piece of Hebrew canon is talking about can only be done for contention's sake. It's his ancestors' God, the all powerful all knowing personal God who laid down the Covenant which was broken by Israel resulting in the Captivity. (Daniel 2:20-25, 9:4-8) As for the triune nature, this was obvious throughout the OT if you knew what you were looking for. But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.” Exodus 33:20 But throughout the OT, we see God appearing as the “Angel of the Lord” in person, sometimes in flesh. (Judges 13, Gen. 3:8, Gen. 18, Exodus 33:11) Jesus said, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father,” and “before Abraham was born, I am!” God is clearly the Angel of the Lord whenever he shows up visibly. Jesus is God but visible. Jesus is the the incarnation of the Angel of the Lord. (Hebrews 1:3) Again, even if you don't believe God, the consistency of the text is clear. The Spirit of God is mentioned throughout the OT and NT. When Daniel speaks, he only affirms and doesn't contradict the rest of the OT. By affirming the other OT prophets who prophesied by the Spirit, Daniel affirms the Spirit. (Dan.9:2) Dating the Book Languages If you follow the timeline of Daniel, it spans a long period of time, about 60 years. Different accounts would have been written down at different times, under different Empires. In this case, one chapter is sometimes written to a different audience than the next. This is not indicative of a different author, especially considering the long time span, but a collection of accounts of one man's long life. Daniel 4 was certainly addressed to a more general audience than much of the rest of the book. Daniel 1-2 would have been of more interest to Jews than Gentiles, and the prophecy about world events would be equally of interest to both audiences. http://www.truthnet.org... p.3 Belshazzar King Belshazzar was not actually the king of Babylon, and is not related to Nebuchadnezzar, so my opponent claims, but Ch.5 calls him king, and the Queen Mother in 5:10,11 calls Nebuchadnezzar his father. Contradiction? A little historical research shows the Bible is accurate here. Numerous primary and verified sources (Herodotus, Nabonidus Cylinder, Cyrus Cylinder, Xenophon's Cryopaedia) tell us that: King Nabonidus tended to leave the job of king up to his son while he pursued his hobbies. The title “King” was still bestowed upon Belshazzar while he held the job when his father was gone. The word for “son” used in 5:22 could also mean “descendant” or “successor.” http://en.wikipedia.org... https://www.biblegateway.com... Absence of Nabonidus Short answer: Yes. That's what he was known for. Also another argument from silence. If you told Con the story of your life and included your grandmother and your cousin, but not the uncle from which the cousin came, Con could not say you were lying because you left out your uncle. Daniel's purpose is not to give an exhaustive account of the succession of Babylonian kings. Daniel appears to have been called up from retirement in Ch.5, so he may have had few or no royal duties after Nebuchadnezzar left the throne. Belshazzar gives the highest honor he can to Daniel at the end of 5, making him the THRID highest ruler in the kingdom. Why not second? Because Belshazzar is already 2nd after Nabonidus, with no authority to anyone raise higher. Darius the Mede Daniel does not say Darius the Great captured Babylon. It does not even say who captured it, aside from the Medes and Persians. It says Darius the MEDE became king over Babylon. Babylonian Berossus and Greek lexicographer Harpocration tell us that There were “King Darius'” long before Darius the Great. A Median king Darius who took control of Babylon was associated with Cyrus the Great's conquest of Babylon. http://en.wikipedia.org... Bias in date interpretation Much of Con's argument is based on the assumption that God does not interact with man. In the case of an investigation into whether God interacts with man(prophesy), this assumption gets in the way. The proper way to investigate a claim is to leave the claim be, and first verify everything else lines up. If there are no major discrepancies in everything besides the claim in question, the claim should be given more weight. Con argues many times that a far greater burden of evidence than what I've given is required to overcome his assumptions that God does not exist. As I stated in R1, the tremendous bias most people will bring to this debate on either side requires that we weigh the arguments against themselves, and not artificially weight one side with our prejudices. I have demonstrated that: What we believe is irrelevant against/for the evidence in the case of an investigation. Daniel lines up with what we know of history, and what we would expect from a document of that age. The historical prediction could not reasonably have been a lucky guess, and is too specific to be self-selection bias. The God of Daniel lines up with the God of the rest of the Bible. If the historical prediction was accurate, and all evidence is that it was made before the fact, this is evidence of a supernatural event, as definite foreknowledge is not possible through natural means. This supernatural event lines up with, and is taken credit for by the God of the Bible. This is evidence of the supernatural, specifically, God interacting in human history. Con has argued: Con's assumption that God doesn't exist is appropriate to take into account in weighing evidence in a debate about the existence of God. Con's disbelief requires greater weight of evidence upon Pro's case. Credibility and number of similar historical occurrences have a prerequisite correlation. (It most likely did not ever occur unless it has occurred several times) There are many false divine prophecies in the Bible, (but he won't tell us which ones they are). Because Daniel does not give enough specific detail about arbitrary events during his supposed life, he is not to be believed. A collection of multi-lingual accounts from a long period of time in a diverse and unstable period in history by an educated man is evidence that the accounts were fabricated later. An original copy is required for verification of ancient documents. (Unsuccessfully) Daniel is riddled with historical inaccuracies. I have demonstrated ABOVE MY OPPONENT'S ARGUMENTS, that God exists. If you believe in God, but you don't think I did a better job with my arguments, voting for me won't help your cause. It will just encourage further bad arguments. If you don't believe, but you recognize Con did not make sound arguments, voting for him will only encourage further bad arguments.