To: WSP - Subject: The messianic phophecies

[R_Daneel]

Many times you have asserted that the existence of messianic prophecies and their fulfillment is a very strong evidence that the claims of Bible (no matter how incredible they may seem) are to be taken as accurate, they are a correct description of events transpired. You also said that their number is so large, and the accuracy is so precise, that it is a mathematical impossibility that they would be any less than a proof for God’s existence.

First, in theory, I very much agree with this approach. It is fully secular, provided a few criteria are met - namely that the prophecies and their fulfillment do not have to taken on “faith” and that the wording of the prophecies is precise, and that their fulfillment is corroborated.

Since in your posts you did not display a good understanding of probabilities, I only ask you to give me a compiled list of these prophecies and the corroborating evidence of their fulfillment. I will do the mathematical analysis to see if they are truly so baffling that they must be taken seriously. If you wish to point to a website, which already has such a list, that is fine, just point it out. But select something that deals with this, and this only. I am not interested in browsing through unrelated texts. Or you can select the pertinent parts of many websites, copy (with URL) what they say. That is fine as well.

The criteria I am looking for are these:

1. accuracy in the prediction,
2. accuracy in the fulfillment,
3. corroborating external evidence that prophet actually said what he allegedly said, and
4. the corroborating external evidence for the fulfillment.

I emphasize the accuracy. I am simply not interested in vague prophecies and made-up fulfillments. They should be precise, **who **is going to do what and **where **and when. Name, event, place and time. Precisely and accurately! The need for external corroboration is obvious; to prove that the alleged fulfillment is not just another myth, which was included by some author, who wished to create yet another piece of a legend.

Now, just a remark. Even if you could compile a convincing list, you would still not be out of the woods, even though it would be a huge step in your favor. There are many events, persons, places described in the Bible which are historically established as correctly as any historical claim can be. They are corroborated by many, independent historians. To accept the rest of the Bible would be still questionable. There is no such thing as “truth by association”. It is common fallacy by many believers. The accuracy of the prophecies would not lend any credence to the resurrection, the miracles, etc., but that is a different matter.

Well, here is your chance. Go for it, and I will pay attention.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Many times you have asserted that the existence of messianic prophecies and their fulfillment is a very strong evidence that the claims of Bible (no matter how incredible they may seem) are to be taken as accurate, they are a correct description of events transpired. You also said that their number is so large, and the accuracy is so precise, that it is a mathematical impossibility that they would be any less than a proof for God’s existence.

First, in theory, I very much agree with this approach. It is fully secular, provided a few criteria are met - namely that the prophecies and their fulfillment do not have to taken on “faith” and that the wording of the prophecies is precise, and that their fulfillment is corroborated.

Since in your posts you did not display a good understanding of probabilities, I only ask you to give me a compiled list of these prophecies and the corroborating evidence of their fulfillment. I will do the mathematical analysis to see if they are truly so baffling that they must be taken seriously. If you wish to point to a website, which already has such a list, that is fine, just point it out. But select something that deals with this, and this only. I am not interested in browsing through unrelated texts. Or you can select the pertinent parts of many websites, copy (with URL) what they say. That is fine as well.

The criteria I am looking for are these:

1. accuracy in the prediction,
2. accuracy in the fulfillment,
   **3) corroborating external evidence that prophet actually said what he allegedly said, and
3. the corroborating external evidence for the fulfillment. **

I emphasize the accuracy. I am simply not interested in vague prophecies and made-up fulfillments. They should be precise, **who **is going to do what and **where **and when. Name, event, place and time. Precisely and accurately! The need for external corroboration is obvious; to prove that the alleged fulfillment is not just another myth, which was included by some author, who wished to create yet another piece of a legend.

Now, just a remark. Even if you could compile a convincing list, you would still not be out of the woods, even though it would be a huge step in your favor. There are many events, persons, places described in the Bible which are historically established as correctly as any historical claim can be. They are corroborated by many, independent historians. To accept the rest of the Bible would be still questionable. There is no such thing as “truth by association”. It is common fallacy by many believers. The accuracy of the prophecies would not lend any credence to the resurrection, the miracles, etc., but that is a different matter.

Well, here is your chance. Go for it, and I will pay attention.

ive bolded and enlarged your obvious attempts at creating a back door.

unless you agree to accept the available evidence as true, as you would for any other historical event you didnt witness, then there isnt much point in discussing Messianic Prophecy any further, is there? you can always just say there isnt corroborated to the usual double standard.

so you can either agree or not thats the first step in the process.

 

[R_Daneel]

ive bolded and enlarged your obvious attempts at creating a back door.

unless you agree to accept the available evidence as true, as you would for any other historical event you didnt witness, then there isnt much point in discussing Messianic Prophecy any further, is there? you can always just say there isnt corroborated to the usual double standard.

so you can either agree or not thats the first step in the process.

You can roll your eyes until they fall out of your head. I did not create a “back door”, and I am not demanding any special method. I do not adhere to the demand that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs”. I demand the very same in every case for any historical claim: ample amount of independent corroborating evidence.

You wish to authenticate the Bible. That is fine and dandy. But you cannot use the Bible as the method of authentication. That much should be obvious. Self-authentication is not acceptable. Rather than accusing me for creating a double standard, you should look into the mirror and remember the adage about the mote in your eye. You wish to use the special pleading fallacy, and demand of me that I should abandon the equal treatment, just because the Bible is seen as “special”. Well, no. If you cannot authenticate the Bible, then your claim about the “tons of evidence for God regarding the messianic propheses” is null and void.

You choose. Either play on **equal **playing field, or shut up.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You can roll your eyes until they fall out of your head. I did not create a “back door”,

im not interested in arguing out Messianic Prophecy, only to have you claim that there isnt enough evidence to support them.

you seem to think the Bible is a single book, it is not, it is all the dozens of books that independantly corroborate the relationship of G-d and man over the course of 1500 years. they are no more a single book than a set of encyclopedias are.

see, you arent even willing to admit the Bible does in fact fit your standard of evidence.

so if you want to have the discussion. you have to guaruntee that claim cant be made that they just didnt happen, or they were made up. that means you must presuppose their truth.

then the argument just becomes about the math and the specificity of Prophecy.

but there is no point in discussing that, if we cant agree on an epistemology.

 

[R_Daneel]

im not interested in arguing out Messianic Prophecy, only to have you claim that there isnt enough evidence to support them.

Backpedaling, when you are given the opportunity to substantiate your claim?? It was you who said ad nauseam that the messianic prophecies are so overwhelming that they can serve as a **mathematical proof **for God’s existence. That was your claim. Now you say you are not interested in giving the details, and giving the substantiation for your claim. Of course I am not surprised.

you seem to think the Bible is a single book, it is not, it is all the dozens of books that independantly corroborate the relationship of G-d and man over the course of 1500 years. they are no more a single book than a set of encyclopedias are.

As a matter of fact, I know that the Bible (the word literally means “books” in plural) is a collection of stories of many authors, and it was put together by the Catholic Church. Many books were considered, and some were accepted, some were rejected. It was a process which is called “cherry picking”. The collectors had no access to the original events. All the authors were believers, who put down what they considered to be “true”. That is cute, but not evidence that they were correct. The books in the New Testament were not even written for at least 3-4 decades after the events actually took place.

It might serve you to read the website about the Bible at the address of freethought.mbdojo.com/canon.html

A short quote:
What we know as the “canonized” bible was not assembled in anything like it’s present form until the 3rd century by a council of bishops (although it was still debated for centuries after). They chose which books should be included in the bible, which books were inspired by God, by vote, just as we might vote on a law. (Can you imagine that some books missed out on being The Word of God by one vote?) Were they any more qualified to judge which books were divine than anyone living today? Is their judgement and knowledge any better than ours?

see, you arent even willing to admit the Bible does in fact fit your standard of evidence.

Why would I deny it? Of course it does not fit my standard of evidence. It is your claim that I am mistaken, and you wished to prove it - by presenting a collection of those “special prophecies”. Now you are suddenly not interested? Bah, humbug! The Bible is but one of the many so called “sacred” books, which all claim divine origin. But of course claims are dime a dozen. Your claim is unfounded without substantiation - which you are not interested to give.

so if you want to have the discussion. you have to guaruntee that claim cant be made that they just didnt happen, or they were made up. that means you must presuppose their truth.

Are you out of your mind? I have to presuppose that your claim is true? What have you been snorting? What kind of nonsense is that? My position is skepticism, and it is your assertion that my skepticism is incorrect, and you claimed that you have mathematical proof in the form of messianic prophecies. When you are called upon to present your argument, you decline. Ho-hum… what else is new?

then the argument just becomes about the math and the specificity of Prophecy.

That is right, you said something, now you have to give the details. Why the reluctance?

but there is no point in discussing that, if we cant agree on an epistemology.

Evading again. I am open to your arguments, and you try to avoid the details. Typical of you. Indeed I was ignoring you for a long time. I wanted to give you one more chance to come clean, and prove that you are worthy to talk to. Well, buddy you blew it. Unless you come forth with the goods, everyone will see that you are full of hot air (or something similar).

 

[warpspeedpetey]

everyone will see that you are full of hot air (or something similar).

had you not been ignoring me, you would see i posted some of the information on your very own thread, when you have had ample opportunity to respond. yet you didnt. so im not back pedaling, ive been putting it in everyones face. you were simply ignoring it.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6354745&highlight=messianic+prophecy#post6354745

now what was that about hot air?

we can start the debate with the very next post.

the least you have to do is presuppose the truth of the Messianic Prophecies and their fulfillment.

after all, debate about the mathematics, and specificity of Messianic Prophecy is pointless, if later you will simply claim that there is insufficient evidence that they are Prophecies, or that their fulfillment happened.

so whats up? do you really want to debate Messianic Prophecy or not?

 

[R_Daneel]

had you not been ignoring me, you would see i posted some of the information on your very own thread, when you have had ample opportunity to respond. yet you didnt. so im not back pedaling, ive been putting it in everyones face. you were simply ignoring it.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6354745&highlight=messianic+prophecy#post6354745

now what was that about hot air?

I went back and read those two links. Thank you for sharing them, because I really needed a good laugh on this cold Monday morning.

I will look at the first one here, there is no need to look at the other one, since they are the same in claims and methodolgy. The first sentence is this: “**I’m going to ask you to take a trip into absurdity with me. **” Indeed, the author is right, it is a trip into absurdity - except the absurdity is happens in reverse. He starts with:

Let’s assume – for the sake of discussion – that for each messianic prophecy a randomly selected person has a FIFTY PERCENT CHANCE of fulfilling that prophecy.
Well, this is the first absurdity. On what grounds does the author assume this outrageously high probability? No, I am not willing to assume such a claim, even for the sake of discussion. Why should I? He might as well have asked to “assume for the sake of discussion” that a randomly selected person has a 50% chance of having won the jackpot in the Powerball. At the get-go the author is already exhibiting a stunning lack of knowledge of what a 50% probability is.

Then he goes on and says:
**In other words, pick somebody at random, anywhere in the world. We’ll assume – for the sake of discussion – that there is a FIFTY PERCENT CHANCE that that randomly selected person was born in Bethlehem.

We’ll assume that there is a fifty percent chance that the randomly selected person is a descendant of King David.

We’ll assume there is a fifty percent chance that the randomly selected person was born of a virgin.

Etc., etc. Certainly, no one can say “Your estimates are unrealistically low. There’s a much greater chance that a randomly selected person could be that.”**
Holy cows! Yes I will say that the 50% is not only unrealistically low, it is outrageously high! A 50% chance that someone was born to a virgin? Is there no level of absurdity he does not expect us to swallow? There was not one documented case of someone (especially a MALE) born to a virgin. And he wishes to assign a 50% probability to this absurdity? On what grounds? The probability of this event is ZERO. If you multiply any number (the assumed probability of all the other “events” combined) the result will still be zero.

And this does not help you at all. I can already foresee that you (or someone else) will argue somehow like this: “But it all happened! How can the occurrence of an event be explained without divine fiat if its probability is simply zero?” And this is the point where the veracity of the Bible comes into question. Nowhere else has it been established that a prophecy like the ones are quoted in the article have actually happened. None of the prophecies mention names, dates, times and places - they are vague to the level of absurdity. Nowhere else has it been established that they were accurately reported. Indeed some books in the Bible assert that they happened, and they were fulfilled. So what? You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

If you wish to argue for the veracity of the Bible (without resorting to faith) you have only one route to take. You must find the external corroborating evidence that the claims put forth in the Bible are correct - each and every one of them. You cannot choose some events which were actually documented externally, and then say that it somehow lends credence to the other parts which are not documented. The “truth by association” is still fallacious, no matter how many times it is invoked.

What the author has established beyond any shadow of a doubt that he has no understanding of probabilities. He pulls out numbers out of his hat, and attempts to create a mathematical argument based upon those make-belief numbers. The computer science phrase for this process is GIGO - garbage in, garbage out!

we can start the debate with the very next post.

the least you have to do is presuppose the truth of the Messianic Prophecies and their fulfillment.

after all, debate about the mathematics, and specificity of Messianic Prophecy is pointless, if later you will simply claim that there is insufficient evidence that they are Prophecies, or that their fulfillment happened.

so whats up? do you really want to debate Messianic Prophecy or not?

You got to be kidding me. I am not granting you anything. If you can not establish that the claims of the Bible are correct, what is there to talk about? Make belief numbers, pulled out from a virtual hat?

You wish to substantiate that the Bible is correct. You cannot use the Bible as a corroborating evidence. That is shameless circular reasoning. I am claiming up front that your method is a con-game. You wish to play a “three-card monte”, by demanding that I grant you an a-priori acceptance of the claim, which you wish to use as corroborating evidence.

If I would accept your claim (the Bible is correct) then there would be no need to go any further. From that hypothetical acceptance it would follow logically that the individual claims are correct - and thus there would be no need to substantiate them.

There was an argument from a Catholic theologian once. It ran approximately like this: “the last thing you do is seek evidence for God’s existence. You must believe that God exists and then you will be in the position to look for evidence of God’s existence”. That is, you grant a-priori acceptance of the hypothesis, and then you look for evidence which seems to support it, while disregarding evidence which does not support it. If that is the Catholic epistemology, it is indeed the direct opposite of the scientific method, which sets up a hypothesis, looks at all the available evidence and let the chips fall where they may. Yes, you wish to be granted validity to your “special pleading”. You are not going to get it.

I remind you (and all the others who read this thread) that I am not asking for “extraordinary evidence”. I demand the same evidence.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I went back and read those two links.

i didnt bother to read the above post.

as i demonstrated in my very first post. you have purposefully created a backdoor, a way to escape when you lose the argument.

allow me to demonstrate yet again

**3) corroborating external evidence that prophet actually said what he allegedly said, and
4) the corroborating external evidence for the fulfillment. **

you have set an impossible double standard from the start. you have already excluded all the supporting documentation, that you claim is necessary, because it is in other books, that are in the Bible. you cant meet this standard on the moonlanding, much less any other historical event.

but there is a very easy solution.

simply agree to presuppose the truth of Messianic Prophecy and their fulfillment.

until this backdoor is closed, the epistemological issues settled, you arent really willing to debate on a level playing field.

so do you agree to presuppose the truth of Messianic Prophecy and their fulfillment, or not?

 

[R_Daneel]

i didnt bother to read the above post.

You did not bother to read what I posted? Well, in that case you can go where the sun does not shine.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You did not bother to read what I posted? Well, in that case you can go where the sun does not shine.

you knew i wouldnt. because of the impossible, double standard of evidence that you proposed in the OP.

**3) corroborating external evidence that prophet actually said what he allegedly said, and
4) the corroborating external evidence for the fulfillment. **

you have set an impossible double standard from the start. you have already excluded all the supporting documentation, that you claim is necessary, because it is in other books, that are in the Bible. you cant meet this standard on the moonlanding, much less any other historical event. this is the usual double standard i keep talking about.

i have asked you repeatedly to agree to an equal playing field, by agreeing to presuppose the truth of Messianic Prophecy and their fulfillments

you apparently felt strongly enough about the issue to publicly challenge me. but you dont seem to want to debate the issue only on the mathematics and specificity of Messianic Prophecies.

as you are professor of mathematics, with decades of experience. i dont see how that should be a problem for you. you shouldnt need a back door, you should be able to simply show me where other mathematicians are wrong.

but you seem to be avoiding real, fair, debate, even though you should have no reason to do so. as you challenged me, i dont understand.

whats up with that?

 

[R_Daneel]

you knew i wouldnt.

Well, your “prescience” is just as bad as everything else you do and say. You are either delusional to a clinical degree or simply a liar. You must have read my post, since you even quoted from it. I suspect that you did not understand what I was saying.

because of the impossible, double standard of evidence that you proposed in the OP.

This shows how nonsensical you are. I expressly maintained that I do not wish to impose a “double standard”. Most probably you cannot even fathom what a “double standard” might be. For every historical claim it is imperative that the corroborating evidence is to be presented. Your actual claim is part of the Bible. You also wish to introduce the Bible as corroborating evidence, or you wish me to “swallow” your claim without any evidence. Neither approach is acceptable.

you cant meet this standard on the moonlanding, much less any other historical event.

Further evidence that you are clinically insane. To confuse the credibility of the testimonies of tens of thousands of independent witnesses (who provided actual material evidence to support their verbal evidence) with the single author of a Biblical passage (who only offers his word) is simply crazy. But of course this has been pointed out several times before and you still keep on repeating it. You are in dire need of professional help.

i have asked you repeatedly to agree to an equal playing field, by agreeing to presuppose the truth of Messianic Prophecy and their fulfillments

Yet another sign that you are delusional if you think that this would be an equal playing field.

you apparently felt strongly enough about the issue to publicly challenge me. but you dont seem to want to debate the issue only on the mathematics and specificity of Messianic Prophecies.

as you are professor of mathematics, with decades of experience. i dont see how that should be a problem for you. you shouldnt need a back door, you should be able to simply show me where other mathematicians are wrong.

I already did, in that post that you did not read, or did not understand.

but you seem to be avoiding real, fair, debate, even though you should have no reason to do so. as you challenged me, i dont understand.

whats up with that?

I was curious if you really have something to say. Apperantly you do not. The links you provided are crystal clear examples of semi-educated people monkeying around in disciplines far above their heads. It is funny that the semi-educated people are always the loudest and the most obnoxious.

**Well, you are back to my ignore list. **

**If there is anyone else out there, who happens to agree that the messianic prophecies are a good way to substantiate God’s existence, and are willing to provide their line of arguments, I am still here and willing to listen. But no con-games plaase. **

 

[warpspeedpetey]

if you really wanted to debate you could have settled terms several posts ago. but you havent. i wonder why that is?

Well, your “prescience” is just as bad as everything else you do and say.

me knowing, is my presience, you knowing, is your presience.

You are either delusional to a clinical degree or simply a liar. You must have read my post, since you even quoted from it. I suspect that you did not understand what I was saying.

actually i havent read it, as soon as i saw you tried to start the debate without coming to equitable terms first, i erased most of it and hit the qoute button. so please cut and paste exactly what i qouted.

This shows how nonsensical you are. I expressly maintained that I do not wish to impose a “double standard”. Most probably you cannot even fathom what a “double standard” might be.

you have maintained it, but i keep demonstrating it, so whats up? can you defend the moonlanding with anything more than an “incredulous stare” defense.? you cant, ive demonstrated it all over these forums.

though i welcome you to try.

For every historical claim it is imperative that the corroborating evidence is to be presented. Your actual claim is part of the Bible. You also wish to introduce the Bible as corroborating evidence, or you wish me to “swallow” your claim without any evidence. Neither approach is acceptable.

you keep trying to make the Bible a single book, instead of a a compilation like the encyclopedia.

if i made an argument from the ‘C’ book, and backed it with an event in the ‘S’ book, would you say “hey, you cant do that, both of your sources are in the encyclopedia!”

of course not. double standard demonstrated yet again.

i want you to make an even playing field by closing the backdoor you created. but you refuse. why is that. shouldnt you be able to prove me wrong on the mathematics?

Further evidence that you are clinically insane. To confuse the credibility of the testimonies of tens of thousands of independent witnesses (who provided actual material evidence to support their verbal evidence)

what tens of thousands of witnesses? there have been only 12 people who have been on the moon. you dont even know the number of witnesses?

funny that number is good enough for you now, but the 12 Apostles with Christ arent. yet another double standard, with a little exageration thrown in

with the single author of a Biblical passage (who only offers his word) is simply crazy. But of course this has been pointed out several times before and you still keep on repeating it. You are in dire need of professional help.

what you want them to Prophecy by commitee? maybe go find a witness first?

Elijah says to Bob “hey, write this down, r daneel is going to want this prophecy verified, and notarized in a few thousand years, bring your notary stamp!”

more impossible standards. by this one you cant prove that anybody ever said what they claim to have said unless they do so in front of witnesses.

flat out ridiculous.

Yet another sign that you are delusional if you think that this would be an equal playing field.

it would be because it would make the debate solely about the specificity of Prophecy, and the mathematics of it.

it would negate your double standards of evidence. that way if you lose on the specificity and the math, you wont have a pre arranged escape hatch.

the mere fact that you have a backdoor tells me that youarent sure of the math or the specificity, if you were, then you wouldnt have a problem agreeing to a level playing field.

I already did, in that post that you did not read, or did not understand.

i will be happy to read it and respond, just as soon as you agree to a level playing field, namely by agreeing to presuppose the truth of Messianic Prophecy and their fulfillments.

if you want to argue out the epistemology that is fine, but one way or the other, we are going to have a single standard of evidence.

I was curious if you really have something to say. Apperantly you do not. The links you provided are crystal clear examples of semi-educated people monkeying around in disciplines far above their heads. It is funny that the semi-educated people are always the loudest and the most obnoxious.

actually, one of those is from another mathematician. that isnt semi educated in my book. i will also be happy to discuss them and others just as soon as you agree to a level playing field.

**Well, you are back to my ignore list. **

ok.

i guess that better than debating the issue on a fair playing field.

**If there is anyone else out there, who happens to agree that the messianic prophecies are a good way to substantiate God’s existence, and are willing to provide their line of arguments, I am still here and willing to listen. But no con-games plaase. **

every Christian in existence explicitly believes the Messianic Prophecies. they are the main reason that the Apostles and others accepted Christ as the Messiah. we would not have a religion with out them.

and im the one asking for a fair playing field, you are the one refusing. who is running a con game?

 

[Syntax]

and im the one asking for a fair playing field, you are the one refusing. who is running a con game?

One who happily accepts a challenge to play a game, but then suddenly refuses to play by a single set of mutually agreed upon rules, is thereby forfeiting to play the game. This is trivially true.

But then we can only speculate about one’s motives for suddenly refusing to play by any actually agreed upon set of rules when he initially agreed to play a game from the start. Sounds like “ostrich” behavior to me.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

One who happily accepts a challenge to play a game, but then suddenly refuses to play by a single set of mutually agreed upon rules, is thereby forfeiting to play the game. This is trivially true.

But then we can only speculate about one’s motives for suddenly refusing to play by any actually agreed upon set of rules when he initially agreed to play a game from the start. Sounds like “ostrich” behavior to me.

cognitive dissonance.

im not worried about the math, or the specificity issues. there is a large body of work on the topic. that should be easy enough to defend.

its the epistemological issues that he will eventually have to use, and he knows it, so while he would like to claim that Messianic Prophecy is unreliable, he cant do so on any grounds but that impossibly high, double standard of evidence, he proposed in the OP.

and he already knows thats a losing argument as i demonstrate on every atheist that stops by.

ergo, he wont agree to an argument that isnt stacked in his favor.

 

[HelenaMT]

cognitive dissonance.

im not worried about the math, or the specificity issues. there is a large body of work on the topic. that should be easy enough to defend.

its the epistemological issues that he will eventually have to use, and he knows it, so while he would like to claim that Messianic Prophecy is unreliable, he cant do so on any grounds but that impossibly high, double standard of evidence, he proposed in the OP.

and he already knows thats a losing argument as i demonstrate on every atheist that stops by.

ergo, he wont agree to an argument that isnt stacked in his favor.

In the interest of others who might be curious about this thread, would it really hurt to just throw what you have out there? Who cares if RDaneel is not arguing on your grounds? If he has nothing convincing to offer to counter, his comments won’t matter. If he is really using unfair standards of judgment, they’ll be apparent, so it won’t be a loss on your part. Just because he sees the Bible as a collection of cherry picked fantasies doesn’t mean you can’t put your points out there for the rest of us to check out. If the Bible is the only reference, that doesn’t make it automatically irrelevant to this thread, just to convincing RDaneel, which you must know is impossible anyway. Ignore his criteria if you just have Bible references, and let others contribute other information if they have it. Just my opinion.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

In the interest of others who might be curious about this thread, would it really hurt to just throw what you have out there? Who cares if RDaneel is not arguing on your grounds? If he has nothing convincing to offer to counter, his comments won’t matter. If he is really using unfair standards of judgment, they’ll be apparent, so it won’t be a loss on your part. Just because he sees the Bible as a collection of cherry picked fantasies doesn’t mean you can’t put your points out there for the rest of us to check out. If the Bible is the only reference, that doesn’t make it automatically irrelevant to this thread, just to convincing RDaneel, which you must know is impossible anyway. Ignore his criteria if you just have Bible references, and let others contribute other information if they have it. Just my opinion.

im happy to debate when the epistemological issues are settled, all other points of mathematics or specificity are moot until those issues are settled, and days of work and debate will just be so much hot air until then.

because he will simply say there is insufficient evidence that the Prophet actually Prophecied, or that the Prophecies are actually fulfilled per these restrictions placed in the OP.

1. corroborating external evidence that prophet actually said what he allegedly said, and
2. the corroborating external evidence for the fulfillment.

this can be easily settled by agreeing, at a minimum to the truth of the Prophecy and its actual fulfillment. which would negate these ‘backdoors’. creating a fair playing field.

but he doesnt want to do that, or to argue out the epistemology until its settled.

if you want to research Messianic Prophecy, then you can google the subject and find mountains of information.

 

[R_Daneel]

In the interest of others who might be curious about this thread, would it really hurt to just throw what you have out there? Who cares if RDaneel is not arguing on your grounds? If he has nothing convincing to offer to counter, his comments won’t matter. If he is really using unfair standards of judgment, they’ll be apparent, so it won’t be a loss on your part. Just because he sees the Bible as a collection of cherry picked fantasies doesn’t mean you can’t put your points out there for the rest of us to check out. If the Bible is the only reference, that doesn’t make it automatically irrelevant to this thread, just to convincing RDaneel, which you must know is impossible anyway. Ignore his criteria if you just have Bible references, and let others contribute other information if they have it. Just my opinion.

Oh, but he already did, in providing this link: godonthe.net/jewish/odds.html and I already replied to it above, which answer he did not “bother” to read. Funny, how things are… It is obvious that he is not a mathematician, and yet he attempts to use math to “prove” his assertion.

He wishes to use the Bible as the foundation to prove God’s existence. Which is fine, as long as the premise (the Bible) is substantiated, and that the methodology to make inferences from the premise is correct. He refuses to substantiate his premise. He demands that I accept it on faith. What a joke.

The method to be used to make inferences is illustrated in the link he himself provided. It is a whole lot of nonsense, numbers pulled out from thin air.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Oh, but he already did, in providing this link: godonthe.net/jewish/odds.html and I already replied to it above, which answer he did not “bother” to read. Funny, how things are… It is obvious that he is not a mathematician, and yet he attempts to use math to “prove” his assertion.

oh no! people who arent mathematicians, cant refer to "math’’ ! how dare they.

last i knew, mathematics isnt restricted to people with doctorates, but you arent going to be arguing the math with me, but the mathematicians that did the analysis. funny that you discounted another mathematicians work here though.

and until the epistemology is settled one way or the other its pointless to discuss anything else.

btw, i dont particularly believe that you are a mathematician as claimed, you havent mentioned anyting we havent seen before, and youve refused to answer questions about the mathematical foundations of your strict empiricism. plus, you defend logical contradictions.

i know several mathematicians, atheist and not, none of them are absolutely strict empiricists, its almost impossible to be one when so many many mathematical structures have no grounding in empiricism. thats the first clue you are not a mathematician. which is why i want to know the mathematical foundations of your strict empiricism

also, none of them would defend a logical contradiction. a dislike for contradiction is a defining characteristic of mathematical inquiry. another clue.

further, all of them are very cautious and rigorous in their thinking. you are not. your reaction to an argument seems entirely based on how it affects your cherished belief. not on its merits. you even accept logical contradictions as true. thats very un-mathematician like.

npatrol:

He wishes to use the Bible as the foundation to prove God’s existence. Which is fine, as long as the premise (the Bible) is substantiated, and that the methodology to make inferences from the premise is correct. He refuses to substantiate his premise. He demands that I accept it on faith. What a joke.

**if you want to argue the epistemology out, then lets do so, start a thread on the matter. but since you have dodged every argument on the matter, i dont think you will. because you know it is a losing argument. **

The method to be used to make inferences is illustrated in the link he himself provided. It is a whole lot of nonsense, numbers pulled out from thin air.

im happy to refute this silliness just as soon as you agree to a fair playing field. you keep trying to start the debate without settling the epistomology. why is that? if your position is correct and you really are a mathematician, you shouldnt have a problem arguing the issue solely on the mathematics and specificity issues.

so why not just settle the epistemology?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Many times you have asserted that the existence of messianic prophecies and their fulfillment is a very strong evidence that the claims of Bible (no matter how incredible they may seem) are to be taken as accurate, they are a correct description of events transpired. You also said that their number is so large, and the accuracy is so precise, that it is a mathematical impossibility that they would be any less than a proof for God’s existence.

First, in theory, I very much agree with this approach. It is fully secular, provided a few criteria are met - namely that the prophecies and their fulfillment do not have to taken on “faith” and that the wording of the prophecies is precise, and that their fulfillment is corroborated.

Since in your posts you did not display a good understanding of probabilities, I only ask you to give me a compiled list of these prophecies and the corroborating evidence of their fulfillment. I will do the mathematical analysis to see if they are truly so baffling that they must be taken seriously. If you wish to point to a website, which already has such a list, that is fine, just point it out. But select something that deals with this, and this only. I am not interested in browsing through unrelated texts. Or you can select the pertinent parts of many websites, copy (with URL) what they say. That is fine as well.

The criteria I am looking for are these:

1. accuracy in the prediction,
2. accuracy in the fulfillment,
3. corroborating external evidence that prophet actually said what he allegedly said, and
4. the corroborating external evidence for the fulfillment.

I emphasize the accuracy. I am simply not interested in vague prophecies and made-up fulfillments. They should be precise, **who **is going to do what and **where **and when. Name, event, place and time. Precisely and accurately! The need for external corroboration is obvious; to prove that the alleged fulfillment is not just another myth, which was included by some author, who wished to create yet another piece of a legend.

Now, just a remark. Even if you could compile a convincing list, you would still not be out of the woods, even though it would be a huge step in your favor. There are many events, persons, places described in the Bible which are historically established as correctly as any historical claim can be. They are corroborated by many, independent historians. To accept the rest of the Bible would be still questionable. There is no such thing as “truth by association”. It is common fallacy by many believers. The accuracy of the prophecies would not lend any credence to the resurrection, the miracles, etc., but that is a different matter.

Well, here is your chance. Go for it, and I will pay attention.

are you ready to settle the epistemological issues that you have thus far refused to address so that we can get this party started?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Many times you have asserted that the existence of messianic prophecies and their fulfillment is a very strong evidence that the claims of Bible (no matter how incredible they may seem) are to be taken as accurate, they are a correct description of events transpired. You also said that their number is so large, and the accuracy is so precise, that it is a mathematical impossibility that they would be any less than a proof for God’s existence.

First, in theory, I very much agree with this approach. It is fully secular, provided a few criteria are met - namely that the prophecies and their fulfillment do not have to taken on “faith” and that the wording of the prophecies is precise, and that their fulfillment is corroborated.

assuming we want a fair and sincere debate on the issue, i was wondering if you were yet willing to accept my solution on the epistemological issues, or to argue them out?