Johnny Skeptic

Message to bfniii: In addition to my previous post, please answer the following questions: Since Deuteronomy 13 says that bad people can accurately predict the future, why should I be impressed that God can predict the future? What gives God the right to rule? Does might always make right, or only in cases where the most poweful being in the universe promises you a comfortable eternal life? As long as you get to enjoy a comfortable eternal life, do you really care who delivers it to you, or whether or not he is perfect? Well of course you don't. If you had cancer, and if a cure was available, would you care who cured you, or whether or not he was perfect. Well of course you wouldn't.

From skeptics' perspectives, if they doubt their beliefs and become Christians, they have nothing to lose if they are wrong, but from Christians' perspectives, if they doubt their beliefs and become skeptics, they have a lot to lose if they are wrong. Therefore, skeptics are perfectly free to follow the evidence wherever it leads, but Christians are not. Why would kind, loving skeptics reject a loving God if they knew that he existed? They wouldn't. I do not know of any skeptic who would be opposed to a God or an advanced alien being who made himself available to help us with our many burdens. In addition, I do not know of any skeptic who opposes human oversight. Without human oversight, there would be anarchy in society. Most skeptics would not object to divine oversight if they deemed it to be reasonable.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to bfniii: In addition to my two previous posts, I suggest that you participate in the new thread that I started yesterday at the GRD forum that is titled 'Do miracle healings happen today'? It is already attracting a good deal of attention from Christians and skeptics.

Sauron

*Yawn.*

Proof?

Sauron

Nope.

Still looking for:

1. Your affirmative evidence; and
2. Your evaluative criteria by which you propose to have met your burden of proof.

For clarity, I suggest you start a new thread with this information.

Sauron

Vague handwave. There is no evidence for this, so ad hoc'ing your way through the argument does not work.

I do not have it backwards; you do. And the only reason that you are creating such a silly argument is that you accidentally mis-remembered the relationship of these instruments to the dating of Daniel. Now you are caught, and cannot admit a simple mistake. Generally speaking, when one finds oneself in a hole, the first rule is to stop digging. However, the prophecy advocates on this board instead seem to run and get a bigger shovel.

1. On the contrary. This is not my argument; I am responding to your earlier attempt to use this example. I am correcting your error, but the first move here was yours - not mine.

2. I am not required to advance both sides of the debate; you already took one side earlier, when you tried to use this example. Therefore two sides are already represented - even though you are doing a poor job of supporting your side, and holding up your burden of proof.

3. At the core, your objection is hypocritical as well - big surprise. Why? Because when you first tried to use the musical instruments example, you did not "present both sides", now did you poptart? I guess you are now admitting that your earlier usage of this example was "suspicious", since you failed to present "both sides"?

Sauron

It's not confusion. It's deliberate denial.

bfniii wants to change the rules of evidence and debate, because he knows his case is weak and cannot be supported under the customary framework. It would take quite a bit of research, hours upon hours of reading and investigation, and quite frankly bfniii isn't up to the task.

So instead, he tries to change the burden of proof to reverse the workload. if you can't win the game, try to change how the game is played.

bfniii

i've already stated my case regarding miracles in the other biblical errors thread.

Johnny Skeptic

I will go back and study your arguments in that thread. Getting back to the topic of this thread, do you know of any criteria for accurately dating the writings of antiquity that are widely accepted among historians and that can be used to date the Tyre prophecy before the events? In addition, do you know of any criteria that are widely accepted among historians that can be used to determine whether or not the copies that we have of original writings of antiquity have been revised? Further, even if the prophecy preceded the events, what about it indicates to you that it was divinely inspired, if that is in fact your position? Historically, kingdoms rising and falling has been the rule, not the exception. It would in fact have been quite surprising if Nebuchadnezzar had not attacked Tyre due to his proven penchant for conquest, the riches of Tyre, and his close proximity to Tyre.

As you know, many dates in antiquity, some a good deal later than the Tyre prophecy, are preceded by the word "circa," meaning approximate, or followed by question marks. That should be proof enough for you that going back thousands of years and trying to accurately date the Tyre prophecy is a worthless endeavor.

bfniii

you must be the first skeptic to ever be satisfied that a christian meet their burden by providing their own criteria. it's a ridiculous exercise because you would never trust it anyway nor would you be satisfied with the process. also, you must be the only skeptic who, when asked, won't provide what would be proof to you.

Sauron

You're not listening as usual.

I did not say I would *accept* the criteria of the christian. What I said (about 50 times or so) was:

It is your job to provide the framework by which you will claim that you have met the affirmative burden of proof.

Go ahead -- offer a suggested framework, and we will discuss it.

See the bold text above? I am not guaranteeing that I will accept your criteria. Who knows; I might - but it's hard to say, since you continually avoid giving any such criteria.

What I am instead saying is: "Toss your criteria out for discussion, and let's see if we can at least agree upon the conditions for successfully proving your affirmative claim." Which I said would be important, because:
if we don't agree on those conditions, then your entire presentation could be a waste of time.

Nonsense.

1. Anyone arguing for a position needs to state up front what they believe the conditions for success are. That is how the judge / audience / whatever decides whether or not the affirmative side has fulfilled it stated goals. It prevents confusion ("Oh, I thought you were arguing something else"); it helps to focus the argument towards clear goals; and it prevents the debate from drifting sideways into irrelevant side issues. Clearly stated conditions of success are very useful and help make the debate productive.

2. Furthermore, trying to paint me as unwilling to accept any standards offered by a christian will not work. You seem to forget that the set of five criteria I listed earlier came from a christian website. I would not have introduced them into the discussion, if I blindly rejected anything that christians suggested as criteria. Trying to handwave away your burden by claiming I am biased against christian standards is a dead-end.

3. If you had done the smart thing and adopted those five criteria yourself, then instead of watching you tapdance for three weeks, we'd probably have a mutually agreed-upon set of criteria by now (although I might add one extra criterion).

So no - you going through this process of defining your success criteria -- followed by discussion and revision to create agreement upon them -- is not ridiculous. It is required. The problem here is that you are simply unwilling to put the time and effort into it. You have also discovered that I will not be convinced to accept your own burden of proof for you. How sad.

I might also add that (1) conditions of success as well as (2) the scope/topic of debate are routinely agreed-upon by theists and non-theists, befoer starting any such debate. Pretending that no such agreement is possible, or that I'm the first one to ask for such groundwork in advance of starting the debate, is simply bullshit.