Fulfilled Prophecy

[warpspeedpetey]

Notice how you continuously ignore my questions regarding the role of mathematics in historical matters, …

No, you asked me how it “uncovered truth”. I pointed out it was nonsensical. You simply repeated it. How can I reply to a nonsensical question? I don’t understand what it means to “uncover truth” as I have tried to point out. If you mean it as in 'verify" or “identify” then it is clear how mathematics addresses the Claim of Christianity through Messianic Prophecies. But if you mean that then why are you asking? So you must be referring to something else, to what I have no idea. Hence it is nonsensical.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

No, you asked me how it “uncovered truth”. I pointed out it was nonsensical. You simply repeated it. How can I reply to a nonsensical question? I don’t understand what it means to “uncover truth” as I have tried to point out. If you mean it as in 'verify" or “identify” then it is clear how mathematics addresses the Claim of Christianity through Messianic Prophecies. But if you mean that then why are you asking? So you must be referring to something else, to what I have no idea. Hence it is nonsensical.

You said that mathematics was superior to the historical method at validating Biblical claims, and I was wondering how? What makes mathematics superior to the historical method in this case? I don’t even know what methods it could use or anything, I have absolutely no idea how you could use mathematics to suggest if something did or did not happen in the past without using the historical method first to verify the evidence being considered. And even then to calculate the probabilities would be difficult so further explanation on that would be awesome too.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You said that mathematics was superior to the historical method at validating Biblical claims, and I was wondering how? What makes mathematics superior to the historical method in this case?

Mathematical reasoning is precise, rigorous and provides great certainty. The way you wish to use the historical method is a logical fallacy. That is what makes mathematical analysis superior. This question has been answered before.

I don’t even know what methods it could use or anything, I have absolutely no idea how you could use mathematics to suggest if something did or did not happen in the past without using the historical method first to verify the evidence being considered. And even then to calculate the probabilities would be difficult so further explanation on that would be awesome too.

You don’t understand how to conduct a mathematical analysis without first committing a logical fallacy?

The fact is that you are insisting admitting a logical fallacy to the debate. That’s not allowed in any kind of debate form I have witnessed.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Mathematical reasoning is precise, rigorous and provides great certainty. The way you wish to use the historical method is a logical fallacy. That is what makes mathematical analysis superior. This question has been answered before.

This answer is not really directed at the question, it is just a definition of mathematics.

You don’t understand how to conduct a mathematical analysis without first committing a logical fallacy?

You’ve called it a logical fallacy and i don’t understand why.

The fact is that you are insisting admitting a logical fallacy to the debate. That’s not allowed in any kind of debate form I have witnessed.

So you still aren’t going to through the ‘how to’ guide with mathematics and history? Even after I’ve asked repeatedly and told you that I DO NOT UNDERSTAND! I don’t care if it’s my stupidity or your being incorrect, just explain your reasoning on the matter so we can determine which.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

This answer is not really directed at the question, it is just a definition of mathematics.

You asked me,

You said that mathematics was superior to the historical method at validating Biblical claims, and I was wondering how? What makes mathematics superior to the historical method in this case?

I said

Mathematical reasoning is precise, rigorous and provides great certainty.

Clearly this is an appropriate answer to the question.

You’ve called it a logical fallacy and i don’t understand why.

I already answered this question. I said

Originally Posted by warpspeedpetey View Post
An appeal to authority becomes fallacious when one claims that it uncovers truth. As you do here.

1. Source A says that p is true.
2. Source A is authoritative.
3. Therefore, p is true.

Clearly this is an understandable and authoritative description of the logical fallacy. Stated as it is accepted world wide.

So you still aren’t going to through the ‘how to’ guide with mathematics and history? Even after I’ve asked repeatedly and told you that I DO NOT UNDERSTAND! I don’t care if it’s my stupidity or your being incorrect, just explain your reasoning on the matter so we can determine which.

The answer that you rejected at the top of this post, is the answer to the question as you have explained it to me.

Attempting to use a logical fallacy as a determination of truth is ludicrous. They are not admitted to the debate anywhere. Not even in the history department. No one aware of even the basic rules of logic would deny this. Your position is untenable. Mathematical reasoning is logically valid and accepted as such by everyone.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Clearly this is an appropriate answer to the question.

Not really because this does not explain the relation or potential capabilities of mathematics in the philosophical or empirical nature of history. You just describe mathematics as it is used in it’s appropriate fields.

Clearly this is an understandable and authoritative description of the logical fallacy. Stated as it is accepted world wide.

One thing you’ve failed to recognize is that I never said that the historical method always uncovers truth, I said that it is agreed by the entirety of the academy of history to be the best method of uncovering historical truth. This is a fact, the entirety of the academic pursuit of history is based upon and built around the historical method, this doesn’t inherently make it better than another method but what is needed is another method to be presented and shown to be superior. So far you’ve claimed mathematics and yet have not suggested how it uncovers historical truth, what methods it uses.

The answer that you rejected at the top of this post, is the answer to the question as you have explained it to me.

No because I’m asking about mathematics in relation to history and the methods used to uncover historical truths, you mentioned none of this and just brought up the actual purpose of mathematics.

Attempting to use a logical fallacy as a determination of truth is ludicrous. They are not admitted to the debate anywhere. Not even in the history department. No one aware of even the basic rules of logic would deny this.

But it is not a logical fallacy, you’ve just ignored the responses where I clarified that I never said it was absolutely true or that it always uncovers truth. I have mentioned the facts of it’s support and it’s success in the field of history. Again, even after mentioning them, I never said that makes it inherently the best and you can verify this by looking back, I have given you ample opportunity to explain the role of mathematics in the field of history and you have yet to do any such thing.

Your position is untenable. Mathematical reasoning is logically valid and accepted as such by everyone.

Mathematical reasoning is logically valid and accepted as such by everyone but I’m yet to see any results within the field of history that was reached by using mathematics alone, they all go through the historical method as again, it is what the field of history is based on, it is the method used by every historian and it has great success. If you feel that mathematics plays a bigger role or is more capable than the historical method within the field of history then feel free to present the methods use, some of the successes it has had and some reasons to believe that it is superior.

Remember, this is not about mathematics in general, this is specifically about the use of mathematics within the field of history and a reasonable argument as to why it is better than the historical method is required to support your position.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Not really because this does not explain the relation or potential capabilities of mathematics in the philosophical or empirical nature of history. You just describe mathematics as it is used in it’s appropriate fields.

That wasn’t the question you asked.
Question

…What makes mathematics superior to the historical method in this case?

Answer

Mathematical reasoning is precise, rigorous and provides great certainty.

One thing you’ve failed to recognize is that I never said…

You said

Because the second premise does not follow the historical method… uncovering the truth of the prophecies.

I said

Using the historical method as you suggest is a logically fallacious appeal to authority.

If you are looking for the truth, the historical method is a logical fallacy, an appeal to authority, if you are not looking for truth than the historical method is is irrelevant. We are here to seek truth.

Remember, this is not about mathematics in general,

That’s all its about. I have always said they are mathematically verifiable. You brought up the historical method.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

That wasn’t the question you asked.
Question: Answer

I specifically asked in relation to history and the historical method, mentioning that mathematics is rigorous, precise and provides great certainty doesn’t answer the question because it shows no relation between mathematics and history.

You said I said If you are looking for the truth, the historical method is a logical fallacy, an appeal to authority, if you are not looking for truth than the historical method is is irrelevant. We are here to seek truth.

I originally assumed that you agreed with the historical method as the best method we have for uncovering historical truth. I based this assumption on the fact that the entire academic community use the historical method when analyzing history. Then after you informed me that you didn’t agree to the historical method, I gave you every opportunity to provide a different method and to explain that method, this is not an appeal to authority because I am not claiming that the historical method is the best because the academic community says so, I am stating facts for it’s support and I am using them to justify the assumption I made. My continued requests for you to present another valid method reinforce the fact that I am happy to disregard the historical method if you can present a superior method.

That’s all its about. I have always said they are mathematically verifiable. You brought up the historical method.

The claim for fulfilled prophecies being mathematically verifiable is what brought this up, you are trying to suggest the prophecies are true by default and I disagree with this. This is where the discussion about the prophecies historical accuracy as claimed by the books in the Bible came from. I presented the historical method as the method we could use to discern their truth, you disagreed with this so I gave you many chances to present and explain a more applicable method. So far you have suggested the discipline of mathematics but no specific methods and you haven’t explained the use of mathematics in discerning historical truth in these matters.****

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…I originally assumed that you agreed with the historical method

Why? I told you a great many times that it was a mathematical verification.

The claim for fulfilled prophecies being mathematically verifiable…

As soon as you agree to my terms a happy to talk methodology. Or you can just research the citation I posted.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I specifically asked in relation to history and the historical method, mentioning that mathematics is rigorous, precise and provides great certainty doesn’t answer the question because it shows no relation between mathematics and history.

I answered the question you asked. If you want to know about methodology, I refer you to the citation I posted until we can come to terms.

I originally assumed that you agreed with the historical method as the best method we have for uncovering historical truth. I based this assumption on the fact that the entire academic community use the historical method when analyzing history.

Why would you do that? I literally told you that it was a mathematical analysis. Many times.

Then after you informed me that you didn’t agree to the historical method, I gave you every opportunity to provide a different method and to explain that method,

If you want to talk methodology, then read the book, or agree to my terms.

this is not an appeal to authority because I am not claiming that the historical method is the best because the academic community says so, I am stating facts for it’s support and I am using them to justify the assumption I made.

No, the historical method as you intend to use it is a logical fallacy, real historians don’t think they are finding truth with it. The appeal to the academic community was an ad populam logical fallacy.

My continued requests for you to present another valid method reinforce the fact that I am happy to disregard the historical method if you can present a superior method.

I answered the question you asked and explained why a mathematical analysis is superior to analysis by the historical method.

The claim for fulfilled prophecies being mathematically verifiable is what brought this up, you are trying to suggest the prophecies are true by default and I disagree with this.

No, not default, they are true because they are documented and corroborated. If you want to claim collusion you will have to provide evidence.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

I answered the question you asked. If you want to know about methodology, I refer you to the citation I posted until we can come to terms.
Why would you do that? I literally told you that it was a mathematical analysis. Many times.
If you want to talk methodology, then read the book, or agree to my terms.
No, the historical method as you intend to use it is a logical fallacy, real historians don’t think they are finding truth with it. The appeal to the academic community was an ad populam logical fallacy.
I answered the question you asked and explained why a mathematical analysis is superior to analysis by the historical method.
No, not default, they are true because they are documented and corroborated. If you want to claim collusion you will have to provide evidence.

Alright, I don’t see any point in continuing any kind of debate with you, you misplace the burden of proof frequently, you falsely accuse of logical fallacies and you have never decided to present the methodology.

Feel free to tell everyone you won this debate and the other, I really don’t care. I’m backing out and will probably ignore your posts in the future due to the unforeseeable positive result of engaging you in debate.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Alright, I don’t see any point in continuing any kind of debate with you, you misplace the burden of proof frequently, you falsely accuse of logical fallacies and you have never decided to present the methodology.

Feel free to tell everyone you won this debate and the other, I really don’t care. I’m backing out and will probably ignore your posts in the future due to the unforeseeable positive result of engaging you in debate.

The burden proof is on the person making the claim. If you want to claim some collusion, then you have to present evidence. That’s really basic. I explained and demonstrated the logical fallacy to you by your own words and the definition of the fallacy, several times. I am happy to discuss methodology when we settle terms. I don’t have to tell everyone I “won” this debate. That attitude is why every conversation with you turns into a battle royale, you’re worried about how you look to others more than you are about what the truth is. We didn’t even have a debate. You challenged me and then refused to accept the actual terms of my claims.You essentially wasted several hours of my time and now when you can’t get your way, you jump threads. Uncool.