To: WSP - Subject: The messianic phophecies

[warpspeedpetey]

Hehe, of course. But to understand that, he would have needed some minimum level of understanding.

then you should agree to a level playing field.

This whole thread reminds me of an old Charlie Brown cartoon. The kids were talking about the previous season’s ball games, all of which they lost. Charlie Brown says that in one of the games victory was actually within their grasp, for a fleeting minute. Linus remarks: “And then the game started!”. That is what is happening here. As soon as I challenged him, he started to evade. More on that later. (Or should I say: “moron that later?”)

sweet!, word play!

how about you actually agree to a level playing field? instead of trying to tell me that impossible standards are resaonable?

your the one dodging actual debate. a simple fix is all it takes and i will be happy to debate, but you keep refusing to. why is that?

For those, who might be recent to review the thread, here is a brief summary of what happened:

they can read the thread.

1. WSP asserted several times over, that the mathematical analysis of the messianic prophecies prove (!) God’s existence.

didnt you know that Jesus is G-d?

1. He gave a link to two websites, which he considered to be authoritative in the matter.

i gave many more, you just never responded to them. i wonder why?

1. Both websites used absolutely ludicrous assertions, proving that their authors do not have the foggiest idea of what they talked about. They do not understand probability theory, but they pretended that they do.

you didnt read the sites or you wouldnt have made that claim.

1. I gave an analysis of those websites, and WSP had the audacity to declare that he did not even bother to read what I wrote.

i told you i wasnt going to debate on the first terms, because they included impossible to meet standards, i wonder why?

Of course, this is not all. The worst is yet to come. He demanded that I grant a-priori full acceptance that the Bible contained specific, well worded, accurate prophecies, and that the Bible also told about the precise fulfillment of those prophecies. He calls this demand a “reasonable epistemic playing field”.

whats wrong with that? you simply agree that the prophets actually spoke those words, and that the fulfillments actually happened.

instead you want furhter proof that the Prophets actually spoke the words, from outside Scripture.

then you want proof outside Scripture that they were fulfilled

you set impossible standards so that you dont have to win the argument on the mathematics, because you cant.

simple as that.

When I asked what are those verses he has in mind, he declined to enumerate them, he even declined to mention even one!

like i said, agree to a level playing field and i will be quite happy to debate, but until the epistemological issues are settled little else matters.

Telling, huh? Of course, granting that nonsensical “request” would have made the idea of talking about them any further - unnecessary. What is there to talk about if I would have accepted that the Bible is accurate and dependable source of this information?

the mathematics and the specificity.

of course you have also declined to argue the epistemological issues and youve declined to accept a fix.

if you were confident of the math you would settle the epistemological issues one way or the other.

but your not.

So here we stand. He declined to tell me which Bible verses he has in mind. Obviously he is unable to substantiate that those verses are correct. But he demands that I should sign an empty paper, which we could then fill out with whatever nonsensical garbage he wishes.

what did you expect? that i would just accept your impossible to meet standards? if you really wanted to debate them you would settle the epistemoilogical issues. but you dont.

The funny part is that HelenMT said that WSP is unreasonable in his demands. She suggested a well-thought solution to break the stalemate. I agreed, and acted accordingly. As usual, WSP evaded to give an answer, just repeated his “well fermented fertilizer” yet once more.

first HelenaMT, is a towqn in Montana. i have no idea of the posters gender, and neither do you

however i didnt think it was a great plan because it doesnt shut the backdoor you left yourself, with those impossible to meet standards.

Can anyone be less rational than that? I don’t think so.

sure i can, a person that refuses to debate.

see, we can argue out the epistemological issues or you can simply agree to the fix i suggested. but you refuse to do either.

either way you are refusing to debate.

which tells me you think that you cannot win a debate over the issue if you dont hold onto those impossible standards.

where is the courage of your convictions? you wanted to debate, but now you refuse.

http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/2729/kentuckyfriedharlandsanders9vc.jpg