God exists

Canon Con did not meet my challenge to demonstrate the inconsistancy of God's character in the canon. The question of which god we're talking about is settled. Lucky guess, 11:36 on Con is very careful to avoid conceeding that the events written in Daniel accurately describe the events of history. He points to 11:36 on as evidence of historical inconsistancy. Though he ignored it, I did show that the previous prophecies in Daniel indicate a consistant timeline of Babylonian, Medio-Persian, Greek, then Final earthly kingdoms. As soon as we get to 35 and 36, we read, plain as day, the author talking about the End. This final king, for the first time, is not distinguished as North or South, and meets his end at the End of the world, and the start of the reign of Messiah. All Greek kings besides the first are distinguished as North or South. Only one king from the final kingdom is ever given much description in this or the earlier prophecies of Daniel. The only reasonable explanation, even if you don't believe in prophecy or God, is that the author was referring to the same king as Daniel 7:7-11. The description of this king's character are exactly the same. (Dan. 7 vs. Dan 11:36 on) Why would any more Greek kings need to be mentioned? The whole reason Antiochus Epiphanes turned with rage upon Israel and the Jerusalem Temple is that the Roman fleet had intervened to secure it's grain supply from Egypt(168BC). The Greeks were on their way out. http://www.livius.org... As Con points out in his 2 requirements of genuine prophecy, the prophecy must be accurate and made before the facts. Having a single gap in time does not make any account invalid, prophecy or not. If any of you told Con the story of your life, he couldn't get away with accusing you of lying if you told the story in order, but left out your middle school years and skipped straight to your 3rd year of highschool. “Even if we assume that there really were genuine prophecies in the Book of Daniel, we can still yield more likely explanations for them than God, since God carries so many assumptions: 1. Lucky guess 2. Self-selection bias “ Why more likely? What assumptions? The majority of attacks I've seen by scholarly skeptics on the book of Daniel have not involved accusation of a lucky guess, but of a late writing date. Since the account names specific places as points of reference to make it clear what it's talking about, (Dan8:15-22, 10:20, 11:2,8,16,28) and the content is so historically accurate, it is not dismissed as a guess by even the critics who know history. Self-selection bias is out too for the same reason. There is no reasonable question that the author was talking about Persian to Greek rule. There is no merit to keeping the “lucky guess/bias” argument alive if someone really wanted to get to the bottom of why Daniel is so accurate. The only reasonable explanation is a knowledge of the events described, whether foreknowledge or historical knowledge. “Again, both of these explanations are well-within our background knowledge and understanding of the world, which gives it a tremendous advantage over God, which by definition is beyond our understanding of the world, in terms of a priori plausibility. An appeal to personal experience and assumption that his knowledge is sufficent to make a posative conclusion on a subject he admits is beyond his understanding. The God of the Bible is the God who reveals himself to those who repent and seek him. I counter by appealing to the explanations that are well within my backround knowledge and understanding of the world that give a tremendous advantage to God over chance in the explanation of Daniel. “We can most certainly agree that the majority of “divine prophecies” made are false...” Not within the canon of Scripture. Con should show false prophecies within the Bible to demonstrate this point. “...we are trying to establish that a genuine and accurate prophecy has occurred, something that essentially doesn’t happen, ever today (just take a look at all the failed doomsday prophecies). If we assume the uniformity of nature principle generally held in the past, then we would expect such revelations to be rare/non-existent in the past as well.” Large, extinction level meteor strikes don't happen today. Assuming the uniformity of nature principal held in the past, we would expect such disasters to be non-existent in the past as well. Except we have large meteor strike evidence. And I am presenting accurate prophecy evidence now. “We do not have: 1. Early Contemporaries reporting about the Book 2. Earlier Manuscripts of Daniel” We have in Ezekiel, a reference to a very wise Daniel that at the same point in time he arose to governorship in Babylon. Which other Daniel would Ezekiel have been refering to? Surely we'd have record of this other significant Daniel, known for his great wisdom and rightousness. Most ancient libraries have a tendancy to cease to exist. The earliest manuscripts from 500 BC for most things don't exist, unless written in stone or clay. But in the book of Daniel we have clues that insist on an early date. Daniel knew of the obscure Babylonian king Belshazzar, (forgotten until 1854) who's last desparate act before the Persians overran the city was to party and praise a large collection of gods and sacred things, native and captured, and the capture of Babylon occurred without resistance. Daniel 5:1-4 tektonics link, (pt4) http://www.britannica.com...... Daniel 5:30 The fact is, the book of Daniel contains a number of intimate details (see link above britannica) only expected from a contemporary or near contemporary of the era. If the book did not contain prophecies, especially uncannilly accurate ones, the book would be considered a generally trustworthy account of the times, even if copied. An intricate knowledge of Persian beuracracy and satraps and legal proceedures (king not above law Daniel 6:15), the Babylonians worshiping native gold idols, the timeline of kings and punishments use by respective empires, (lions-Persia, fire-Babylon), properly structured royal decrees (Daniel 4 http://tektonics.org... pt3) are among a few of the relevant details that can be found at the prior link. All the evidence stacks up in favor of an early date, and only arguments of silence and insistance of a higher bar of evidence can be made for a late date. All insistance on a late date is based on the bias and assumption that prophecy cannot exist. But weighing the book by the standards put against any other historical manuscript, and leaving out motive to disprove it for philisophical reasons, the book is judged to be most likely from the time it says. This makes the prophecies pre-date the events predicted. They are too accurate and precise to be labeled lucky guesses. Either the biggest fluke in history, or evidence of the God of Daniel intervening in history.