How else can it be considered a prophecy? It’s like me saying, “One day, a woman called Betty will give birth to a son name Fred - he shall have red hair and an undershot jaw.” It’s not a prophecy, it’s an inevitability.
and then meet dozens of other specifics? yeah that happened, person place, name heritage, future events, manner of death, manner of burial, and on and on. there are way too many to fight.
Now, if a prophecy were made with sufficient accuracy, you would then need to prove that the ‘fulfillment’ wasn’t written by someone who decided to fabricate that fulfillment. On these basic premises, none of your prophecies can be held to have been fulfilled.
i dont need to prove it wasnt a conspiracy, if that is your assertion the burden of evidence is on you, but i find it hard to believe that the apostles would make up stories and then suffer decades of deprivation, terror, and imprisonment, just for a good laugh. if your saying a third party did it, what evidence do you have for such a thing?
I’ve read quite enough, thank you.
no, you just dodged, and now that math is involved your going to dodge again.
Okey-doke. My comments above hold true.
yeah, you just refused too look at the evidence, you want to be an atheist, the math challenges that notion in an almost irrefutable manner. i bet you will find any excuse not to review the mathematical evidence, or the prophecies from which they are drawn.
Ah, now we see where your interpretation of the PSR is influenced by your belief. You are interpreting “sufficient” as meaning “the faintest possibility.” I, however, take it at face value, and my meaning of “sufficient” veers more towards the sufficiency of evidence required in a court of law. It should mean, “beyond reasonable doubt.” This is what “sufficient” means when talking about the provenance of a particular assertion. I most definitely do not subscribe to your version of the PSR! (and very few people do, if you read up on it)
ive read dissertations that attempt to soften or deny the PSR, funny almost all of them are written in view of atheism, though i think the attacks show atheisms desire instead of rational nature. however, the scientific method relies on it, so im not impressed by those who would deny it. if things happen for no reason, then where are all these miraculous events? oh wait, there is no suchh thing as miracles, but not everything needs a cause?. im being facetious, but the positions are contradictory. ill stick with the scientific method on this one. regardless of a few attempts to claim its not so, there is simply no empirical evidence against it. and stop implying some knowledge of the PSR, you didnt even know what it was the other day.
**Well yes, for us to exist **it is necessary that beings exist. However there is no evidence, either empirical or logical, that God must exist. That’s sufficient explanation - we exist, but there’s no evidence that God does.
this is where a little research on the contingency argument would help out. you just admitted G-d inadvertantly, who is the necessary being.
though its interesting that we exist is sufficient explanation, another violation of the PSR, and if it isnt please provide me the specific reason.
I’ve answered this in another thread. You are stating conjecture as evidence. It does not stand up to scrutiny as it boils down to baseless assertion. The fact that you believe it does not make it true.
and as i pointed out on that thread you dont know what evidence means, your personal definition of all evidence is empirical isnt the actual definition or how you actually operate oh believer of animal emotions and unevidenced scientific explanations for the creation of the universe.
Er, okay, whatever you say…
you asked.
Your smug self-righteousness is hilarious. What on earth makes you think your vacuous arguments have changed my mind in the slightest? I am a rational being and I believe in what I can observe. If you want me to believe in something else, show me evidence for its existence. Despite what you may think, you have failed to do this.
because i know where that path leads been there. as too evidence we have shown you , your personal definition dont mean jack, becuase you dont follow it either.
An arbitrary assertion of what is contingent on what, is not a good starting point for any kind of conversion. I fully believe that all this is perfectly clear in your own mind, unfortunately from an independent and objective pov, there is nothing to substantiate your claims.
again, you say assertion, but you refuse to reseacrch the argument, thats the wannabe aspect, you arent willing to do the work. i think you dont want to face the music, dodge, and dodge again.
“He said that she said,” witness statements at best.
ffthey generally agree, its not a he said she said situation at all.
Are they signed? Have the statements themselves been witnessed?
yes several are signed, all were witnessed by the Church and by Judaism for the OT
Are any of the witnesses alive for cross-examination? No?
unfortunately, no, but as they died for their beliefs one can make the dying declaration argument. especially as these testimonies all substantially agree
Then it is not proof of any kind. If I turned up at a murder trial with a statement like, “The Janitor’s wife saw the car salesman kill the victim,” do you think the judge would wrap up and order the jury to convict the car salesman? No? Then why should your ‘evidence’ be any more privileged?Have the statements themselves been witnessed?
no the statement would be, “i saw car salesman kill the victim” and it would be a bunch of statements.
Yes, you have suggested that. Unfortunately for you, suggestion is not evidence.
indeed the universe even fits your personal defintion of evidence it is after all empirical.
Of course it can’t be proven, but the absence of evidence of a higher purpose to the universe is good enough, for the same reason as the absence of evidence for unicorns is considered adequate reason for not believing in them.
