To: WSP - Subject: The messianic phophecies

[R_Daneel]

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?

There is nothing to argue, since you did not present any argument. If you want to, you can present your argument in a conditional format, saying “if the prophecies of the Bible are true, then this is their corollary”. I have no idea what verses of the Bible you consider a “prophecy” and which verses you consider a “fulfillment” of those prophecies. Without a list, there is nothing to evaluate. Make sure you provide a comprehensive list - and when you do, we can start from there.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

There is nothing to argue, since you did not present any argument.

im refering to the epistemological arguments.

If you want to, you can present your argument in a conditional format, saying “if the prophecies of the Bible are true, then this is their corollary”.

and what is to prevent you from simply claiming that they dont meet the standards

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

these are impossible to meet, they arent reasonable.

I have no idea what verses of the Bible you consider a “prophecy” and which verses you consider a “fulfillment” of those prophecies. Without a list, there is nothing to evaluate. Make sure you provide a comprehensive list - and when you do, we can start from there.

and i will, just as soon as we settle the epistemological issues. i see little point in it until these issues are settled.

we can argue out the epistemology, or you can just agree to accept that the Prophets said what he purports, and the fulfillments are what they hold to be.

but if you can simply say later after days of debate, that there is no evidence that a Prophet actually spoke those words, other than his say so, or the same about the fulfillment of Prophecy, then it makes all the other issues moot.

 

[R_Daneel]

these are impossible to meet, they arent reasonable.

Just because they are impossible to fulfill that does not mean that they are unreasonable. What would be unreasonable to agree your claim a-*priori *without even seeing what those claims are! Unless you list all the verses which are proclaimed to be prophecies and the list of those verses which are claimed to show the fulfillment of those prophecies I am not in the position to evaluate them. What is unreasonable, is your demand that I agree to “sign” your empty paper without knowing what you are going to write on it. Surely you can see that? I gave you the opportunity to prove your claim about the prophecies. You keep dodging the question. That is the unvarnished truth.

we can argue out the epistemology, or you can just agree to accept that the Prophets said what he purports, and the fulfillments are what they hold to be.

but if you can simply say later after days of debate, that there is no evidence that a Prophet actually spoke those words, other than his say so, or the same about the fulfillment of Prophecy, then it makes all the other issues moot.

The epistemology is the same with all historical claims. I demand no more and no less from you than I would demand from anyone who wishes to assert a historical claim. Give me reason to believe that it happened. No more, no less. If you are unable to fulfill this simple request, then you have no argument, except empty words.

 

[HelenaMT]

im refering to the epistemological arguments.

and what is to prevent you from simply claiming that they dont meet the standards

these are impossible to meet, they arent reasonable.

and i will, just as soon as we settle the epistemological issues. i see little point in it until these issues are settled.

we can argue out the epistemology, or you can just agree to accept that the Prophets said what he purports, and the fulfillments are what they hold to be.

but if you can simply say later after days of debate, that there is no evidence that a Prophet actually spoke those words, other than his say so, or the same about the fulfillment of Prophecy, then it makes all the other issues moot.

RDaneel and WSP: how are these for terms?

WSP-presents his predictions and fulfillments
RDaneel-presents the mathematical probabilities he spoke of as if the evidence were there
-then goes on to argue whether he felt the sources WSP used were good or not, and why, in his opinion

(WSP, you aren’'t actually asking RDaneel to agree that you are right before you will present the evidence? That seems really unfair in a honest discussion-it’s like having an argument on abortion where the pro-life side must first concede that the baby they want to protect is only a parasite before they are allowed to argue for it’s existence)

On the other hand, RDaneel, it seems that WSP would like you to apply your skills as a real mathematician to his evidence, rather than him presenting evidence and you not bothering to do so. Unless the point of the OP was to show that since the only evidence is Biblical, it is not to be taken seriously, it seems that WSP should be able to make a case, you should take a stab at the probabilities, and then feel free to attack the sources on this or another thread.

Sound fair?

 

[R_Daneel]

RDaneel and WSP: how are these for terms?

WSP-presents his predictions and fulfillments
RDaneel-presents the mathematical probabilities he spoke of as if the evidence were there
-then goes on to argue whether he felt the sources WSP used were good or not, and why, in his opinion

(WSP, you aren’'t actually asking RDaneel to agree that you are right before you will present the evidence? That seems really unfair in a honest discussion-it’s like having an argument on abortion where the pro-life side must first concede that the baby they want to protect is only a parasite before they are allowed to argue for it’s existence)

On the other hand, RDaneel, it seems that WSP would like you to apply your skills as a real mathematician to his evidence, rather than him presenting evidence and you not bothering to do so. Unless the point of the OP was to show that since the only evidence is Biblical, it is not to be taken seriously, it seems that WSP should be able to make a case, you should take a stab at the probabilities, and then feel free to attack the sources on this or another thread.

Sound fair?

Of course it is fair. However, to assign probabilities to such events is the task of the one who asserts that such claims can be probabilisticly analyzed. The main problem is that the probabilities mentioned in the supporting article were not just unrealistic, but outright ludicrous. The author said that the probability of being born to a virgin is 50%… how crazy can he be?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Just because they are impossible to fulfill that does not mean that they are unreasonable.

thats exactly what it means to be unreasonable.

education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/unreasonable

Exceeding reasonable limits; immoderate: unreasonable demands. See Synonyms at excessive.

What would be unreasonable to agree your claim a-*priori *without even seeing what those claims are! Unless you list all the verses which are proclaimed to be prophecies and the list of those verses which are claimed to show the fulfillment of those prophecies I am not in the position to evaluate them. What is unreasonable, is your demand that I agree to “sign” your empty paper without knowing what you are going to write on it. Surely you can see that?

you know exactly what form they are going to take. a prophet will claim X is going to happen, then the fulfillment of X will be shown to have occured at a later date.

the content of individual prophecies doesnt particular matter unless youre going to make an epistemological claim about them, which is exactly what im trying to settle.

I gave you the opportunity to prove your claim about the prophecies. You keep dodging the question. That is the unvarnished truth.

you made a public challenge with no warning. and then set the evidential bar higher than you do for any other claims. hardly an oppurtunity.

The epistemology is the same with all historical claims. I demand no more and no less from you than I would demand from anyone who wishes to assert a historical claim. Give me reason to believe that it happened. No more, no less. If you are unable to fulfill this simple request, then you have no argument, except empty words.

ok, how is this for a reason? they are evidenced in the various books compiled into the canon called the Bible?

you have rejected this previously even though you accept other evidence for other historical events.

if you dont accept it, than lets argue out the epistemological issues. but until they are settled nothing else matters.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

RDaneel and WSP: how are these for terms?

WSP-presents his predictions and fulfillments
RDaneel-presents the mathematical probabilities he spoke of as if the evidence were there
-then goes on to argue whether he felt the sources WSP used were good or not, and why, in his opinion

 

[R_Daneel]

you know exactly what form they are going to take. a prophet will claim X is going to happen, then the fulfillment of X will be shown to have occured at a later date.

Haha, this turned out exactly as I anticipated. More evasion, refusal to come up with the supporting evidence. Therefore I am going to address the crux of the matter without waiting for the (name removed by moderator)ut from WSP, which is clearly not forthcoming.

The fundamental claim is that some events are so very unlikely, or extremely improbable, that it is reasonable to assume a divine reason for them. Numbers are mentioned when discussing abiogenesis, and these numbers are in the vicinity of 10^(-60), 60 zeros after the decimal point. Those links WSP provided mention very low probabilities, and the supporting numbers are more than unreasonable, they are simply ridiculous (as a matter of fact they are ridiculously high! The actual numbers are much lower).

What is missing, of course, any substantiation that unlikely events need a supernatural explanation. This is just stipulated without any supporting evidence or justification for it. They do not assume any specific “extra”, they just assert that the sheer improbability of an event “proves” a divine interference.

Therefore I am going to deal with this problem. I am going to be very generous with my assumptions. Suppose that the Bible mentions 10000 prophecies. I doubt that anyone would suggest even a 100 of them. (Note: WSP refused to give even the slightest detail for his claim, not even how many messianic prophecies he has in mind. So I had to pull this number out of thin air. If you think it is too low, just take 50 thousand or a hundred thousand “prophecies”, if you like. The numbers are not significantly different.)

Suppose that the individual probability for each and every one of them in not a ridiculously high 50%, rather a more realistic 1 in 10 billion. Suppose, as WSP so unreasonably demands, that I accept that all of those 10000 (or more) prophecies were fulfilled, and the fulfillment was also properly substantiated by external documentation - even though they were not (of course!).

Now, what is the probability of all that? One in ten billion is 10^(-10). This “happened” 10 thousand times. The overall probability is therefore 10^(-100000), in other words one hundred thousand zeros after the decimal point. Compare that with the “measly” 60 zeros after the decimal point which is so proudly and irrationally mentioned in the case of abiogenesis.

What the proponents claim is that this number is so very incredibly low, that it could not have happened without God’s “guiding hand”. They say that such a coincidence is “impossible”, and thus it “proves” God’s existence.

The refutal: First, the proponents cannot substantiate that those prophecies actually happened and they were fulfilled. Second, even if it did, they cannot justify that such an incredibly improbable event cannot just happen by itself. They assert this claim, and don’t even try to come up with reason for it. They just hope that none of the skeptics will point out that the “emperor has no clothes” - this claim is unsubstantiated. And, no, such a claim is not based on “common sense”, it is based upon the profound lack of knowledge the claimants exhibit. Sadly, they are just happy in their ignorance, and don’t even want to listen when someone explains the error in their ways - what I and many others already did, many times.

Third, I will give a specific example to the contrary. Unbeliveably improbable events do happen all the time - and no one of sane mind would suggest a divine “interference”. Take the old game of roulette. In every game there are 37 (or 38) outcomes, depending on the type of the roulette. During the history of this game at least 10 million games have been played. I am being conservative here, the number is probably higher than that. In every game the ball stops on one specific number, from 0 to 36. (If we would consider the double zero, the probability would become even less).

If we put these numbers into a row, in chronological order, we shall get a sequence of random numbers 10 million long. Now, imagine, that just one spin of the wheel would have been slightly different, the sequence would be different. The chance of this particular sequence is 37^(-10000000). This number is so low that the number quoted in the abiogenesis example (10^-60), or the number I gave above (10^-100000) simply pale in comparision. This number has more than 15 million zeros after the decimal point! (There is no physical phenomenon which can be compared to this number. Suppose the whole visible universe would be trillions and quadrillions of times larger. Suppose, this incredibly huge space would be packed with neutrons touching each other, and one proton among them. Suppose you had one random selection to choose that lonely proton. The chance of that succeeding is much higher than having the roulette wheels producting that sequence above!)

Yet, this event actually happened! I could give examples of even more unlikely events which happen all the time.

Do those claimants of divine guidance now claim that the roulette wheels and the balls were personally “guided” by God, so this particular event could happen? I would hope not. Not even they are that irrational. So forget your claim WSP. The existence of God cannot be “proven” by your messianic claims, just as it cannot be proven by any other method. Be happy in your blind faith, because it will get you heaven. Remember what the Bible says about the meek…

Of course the problem is that the proponents of such nonsense have no idea what the theory of probabilities is all about. And they forget the old adage about “… rather than opening their mouth and prove it!”.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Haha, this turned out exactly as I anticipated. More evasion, refusal to come up with the supporting evidence. Therefore I am going to address the crux of the matter without waiting for the (name removed by moderator)ut from WSP, which is clearly not forthcoming.

clearly, you are evading the simple fix, so we can begin debate. after reading this post, it is clear that you didnt need them to make the argument, they would only be useful if you lost the argument on other grounds. if that isnt true than you only have to agree to my terms to disprove it.

The fundamental claim is that some events are so very unlikely, or extremely improbable, that it is reasonable to assume a divine reason for them.

that isnt the claim at all, the claim is that the fulfillments of prophecies, written by many people over the course centuries, being fulfilled centuries later is proof that Christ is the Prophecied Messiah.

Numbers are mentioned when discussing abiogenesis, and these numbers are in the vicinity of 10^(-60), 60 zeros after the decimal point. Those links WSP provided mention very low probabilities, and the supporting numbers are more than unreasonable, they are simply ridiculous (as a matter of fact they are ridiculously high! The actual numbers are much lower).

you obviously didnt read them, or you wouldnt be making such a statement, when you adress the epistemological issues i will be happy to discuss what is actually in them. but not until then

What is missing, of course, any substantiation that unlikely events need a supernatural explanation. This is just stipulated without any supporting evidence or justification for it. They do not assume any specific “extra”, they just assert that the sheer improbability of an event “proves” a divine interference.

again, that isnt the claim at all, the claim is that the fulfillments of prophecies, written by many people over the course centuries, being fulfilled centuries later is proof that Christ is the Prophecied Messiah.

Therefore I am going to deal with this problem. I am going to be very generous with my assumptions. …

…

Now, what is the probability of all that? One in ten billion is 10^(-10). This “happened” 10 thousand times. The overall probability is therefore 10^(-100000), in other words one hundred thousand zeros after the decimal point. Compare that with the “measly” 60 zeros after the decimal point which is so proudly and irrationally mentioned in the case of abiogenesis.

that isnt what those links said. i will be happy to discuss them just as soon as you stop dodging a fix for the impossibly high, unreasonable standards you set.

What the proponents claim is that this number is so very incredibly low, that it could not have happened without God’s “guiding hand”. They say that such a coincidence is “impossible”, and thus it “proves” God’s existence.

again, that isnt the claim at all, the claim is that the fulfillments of prophecies, written by many people over the course centuries, being fulfilled centuries later is proof that Christ is the Prophecied Messiah.

The refutal: First, the proponents cannot substantiate that those prophecies actually happened and they were fulfilled.

this is the whole problem, i can deal with all the rest, but you are unwilling to debate without this unreasonable standard.

Second, even if it did, they cannot justify that such an incredibly improbable event cannot just happen by itself. They assert this claim, and don’t even try to come up with reason for it. …when someone explains the error in their ways - what I and many others already did, many times.

again, that isnt the claim at all, the claim is that the fulfillments of prophecies, written by many people over the course centuries, being fulfilled centuries later is proof that Christ is the Prophecied Messiah.

Third, I will give a specific example to the contrary. Unbeliveably improbable events do happen all the time - … from 0 to 36. (If we would consider the double zero, the probability would become even less).

If we put these numbers into a row, in chronological order, we shall get a sequence of random numbers 10 million long. … Suppose, this incredibly huge space would be packed with neutrons touching each other, and one proton among them. Suppose you had one random selection to choose that lonely proton. The chance of that succeeding is much higher than having the roulette wheels producting that sequence above!)

Yet, this event actually happened! I could give examples of even more unlikely events which happen all the time.

… So forget your claim WSP. The existence of God cannot be “proven” by your messianic claims, just as it cannot be proven by any other method. Be happy in your blind faith, because it will get you heaven. Remember what the Bible says about the meek…

Of course the problem is that the proponents of such nonsense have no idea what the theory of probabilities is all about. And they forget the old adage about “… rather than opening their mouth and prove it!”.

you are confused as too what the claim is in most of this post. then you are confused about what the links actually demonstrate, which by the way is the work of another mathematician.

the Messianic Prophecies prove that Christ is the foretold Messiah. which i will be happy to debate just as soon as you settle the epistemological issues.

why wont you settle them? you could have made this exact same argument without them. what is there to be afraid of?

 

[R_Daneel]

this is the whole problem, i can deal with all the rest, but you are unwilling to debate without this unreasonable standard.

Backpedaling again? You explicitly claimed that the messianic prophecies mathematically prove God’s existence. Your links explicitly deal with the mathematical “impossibility” of any other explanation. Now, that I showed that the mathematics in those links are bogus, you wish to change the playing field. Don’t con me. You failed - as usual. I am willing to deal with ignorance. I even invested a lot of time and effort in explaining why your “mathematics” is bogus, null and void. I do not wish to deal with the dishonesty you exhibit over and over again.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Backpedaling again? You explicitly claimed that the messianic prophecies mathematically prove God’s existence. Your links explicitly deal with the mathematical “impossibility” of any other explanation. Now, that I showed that the mathematics in those links are bogus, you wish to change the playing field. Don’t con me. You failed - as usual. I am willing to deal with ignorance. I even invested a lot of time and effort in explaining why your “mathematics” is bogus, null and void. I do not wish to deal with the dishonesty you exhibit over and over again.

you didnt adress the mathematics in the links. you apparently didnt read them thoroughly either. because that isnt what they say.

i am happy to address these issues just as soon as you agree to deal with the epistemological issues.

but you dont. why not? that is the only thing stopping a debate. i see the argument you intend to use, and i am still willing and able to debate just as soon as you deal with the epistemological issues

why not? dont you really want to debate?

you either have the courage of your convictions or you dont.

 

[R_Daneel]

you didnt adress the mathematics in the links. you apparently didnt read them thoroughly either. because that isnt what they say.

Oh, yes I did. And I addressed them, all right. If you don’t understand it, that is no skin off my nose.

i am happy to address these issues just as soon as you agree to deal with the epistemological issues.

I already did that, too. I expect the same kind of corroboration for any and all historical claims. If you think that that level is “unreasonable” for your claims, then your claims are unreasonable - not my standard. There is no double standard here - on my part. You wish to use special pleading for your case.

Besides, without knowing how many messianic prophecies are there, without knowing what their precise wording is, without knowing the wording of their alleged fulfillment there is no way to address them at all. Go and present your case. Provided, of course that you have a case. I doubt it.

By the way, I am tired of your backpedaling and attempts to change the playing field. If you don’t come up with the list, I am not going to answer.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Oh, yes I did. And I addressed them, all right. If you don’t understand it, that is no skin off my nose.

no you didnt, and i can demonstrate it, which i will do just as soon as you agree to fix the epistemological situation.

I already did that, too. I expect the same kind of corroboration for any and all historical claims. If you think that that level is “unreasonable” for your claims, then your claims are unreasonable - not my standard. There is no double standard here - on my part. You wish to use special pleading for your case.

no you didnt, you simply told me that an impossible standard is reasonable. all you have to do is agree to my terms, or to argue out the epistemology until we reach a single agreeable standard, but you havent, and i dont understand why.

Besides, without knowing how many messianic prophecies are there, without knowing what their precise wording is, without knowing the wording of their alleged fulfillment there is no way to address them at all. Go and present your case. Provided, of course that you have a case. I doubt it.

you can find it by google, but until you agree to deal with the epistomological issues, all other points are moot.

By the way, I am tired of your backpedaling and attempts to change the playing field. If you don’t come up with the list, I am not going to answer.

since you could easily agree to my terms or to argue out the epistemology so that we may have an equal and fair playing field, i dont see why you wont. it tells me that you feel it is necessary. but why would that be? maybe you arent sure of youre argument after all?

so, i will check back every so often to see if youre willing to settle the epistemological issues so we can debate. so dont worry.

 

[AlbertBall]

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

LOL he did not bother to read the psot because he was totally PWNED.

http://randysright.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/head_in_sand.jpg

 

[warpspeedpetey]

LOL he did not bother to read the psot because he was totally PWNED.

my 8 year old little girl says ‘pwned’… what was this about you working past degree level? i find it hard to believe, if your idea of an insult is the same as my 8 year olds when she plays video games:blush:

 

[AlbertBall]

my 8 year old little girl says ‘pwned’… what was this about you working past degree level? i find it hard to believe, if your idea of an insult is the same as my 8 year olds when she plays video games:blush:

Sorry would you like me to explain to you what it means? Maybe you should go get some education off your eight year old! lol

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Sorry would you like me to explain to you what it means? Maybe you should go get some education off your eight year old! lol

no, i understand what it means. but the way you used it is inaccurate, i would actually have to lose the debate, but since he refuses to settle terms, we havent even started a debate yet.

so you dont actually seem to understand its usage. which is funny, because my little girl does. and she is only 8.

 

[AlbertBall]

no, i understand what it means. but the way you used it is inaccurate, i would actually have to lose the debate, but since he refuses to settle terms, we havent even started a debate yet.

so you dont actually seem to understand its usage. which is funny, because my little girl does. and she is only 8.

Well to be fair i there is only one person in this thread that can’t see you were PWNED, and that is you.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well to be fair i there is only one person in this thread that can’t see you were PWNED, and that is you.

even after you were told the correct usage of the word, you still can t use it right? sweet

 

[R_Daneel]

LOL he did not bother to read the psot because he was totally PWNED.

http://randysright.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/head_in_sand.jpg

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

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?”)

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

1. WSP asserted several times over, that the mathematical analysis of the messianic prophecies prove (!) God’s existence.
2. He gave a link to two websites, which he considered to be authoritative in the matter.
3. 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.
4. 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.

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

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.

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.

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