mata leao

such a shame too..... I am not tired..I have a huge pot of starbucks cofee on.....such a shame you cant concede on somehting that any reader here would likely agree to.....ask you colleagues..ask toto.......toto knows that the Bablyonians and Egyptians commonly used this practice.....lets get a second opinion shall we?

Sauron

If it's that easy to prove it, then this is your golden opportunity to shut me up.

Of course, I'm going to insist that you prove it specifically applied to Ezekiel himself - generalities will not do.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to mata leao: Will you please state your definition of the word "prophecy," and then tell us what qualifies the Tyre prophecy as being a prophecy? A bona fide prophecy predates the events it mentions. Do you have any evidence that the prophecy predated the events? Well of course you don't? Do you have any evidence that the version of the prophecy that we have today is the same as the original version? Well of course you don't. It is time for you to concede defeat and pick a new prophecy. If I told you that I predicted what the stock market would close at a week in advance, you would demand proof that I made my prediction in advance of the event, and that I did not revise my prediction after the event, would you not? Well of course you would. Come on, be honest for a change.

Jack the Bodiless

mata leao:

As THIS thread is specifically about the DATING of the "prophecy", will you address my post #67 in this thread?

We know that the Book of Ezekiel certainly wasn't FINISHED until AFTER the siege of Tyre. We know this because Ezekiel later refers to the events in the past tense, and attempts a fresh prophecy for Nebby AFTER his failure to conquer Tyre.

bfniii

incorrect. how would you prove an event was a miracle?

this statement itself is a claim. since you bear the burden, can you prove why the claimant bears the burden other than just repeating it over and over?

(taking notes) signs of denial and self-aggrandizment. could indicate napoloen complex.

would you be so kind as to respond to my refutation of your 4 points?

i have pointed this out already but i will do so again, i have offered no proof. what i have done is outline the traditional christian position and asked you what you would consider proof.

here you don't deny that you have ideas which proves point #3 is correct. note: if you disagree, then show how having ideas is not what i stated in the point.

you have no idea what my education level is so your comment is more evidence of your lack of objectivity since you have to resort to a personal level to make your points.

you agree with point #1. you are unable to prove point #2 is incorrect. you don't deny #3. therefore, this conclusion is completely unsubstantiated.

i have pointed out several claims made by you and can quote you on them.

neither of these responses addressed the point i raised. i said you should welcome this opportunity because of your self-perceived greatness. yet you continue your suspicious inculcation. the more you do so, the more suspicious your behavior is. as i said, your argument should be so effective that you should have no problem setting about the task of:
1. showing how an event can be proven to be, or not be, miraculous or divinely inspired
2. showing how the composition date of a text can be fixed
3. showing who all knew that nebuchadnezzar was going to inevitably invade tyre
4. showing how a text can be exonerated of any tampering

notice that i'm not asking you to prove anything. all i'm asking you to do is set the groundwork for the continuance of our discussion. i will try to meet your criteria.

could you specifically and succinctly point out these flaws in my case?

this nebulous "logical ability to see holes" is what i'm interested in. in order for you to "see holes", you have to know of another explanation that is less "holey". otherwise, holes would never appear to you.

but you don't deny that you have bullets and a gun that give you the ability to "spot flaws". what you are shooting with wouldn't even exist unless you had knowledge of some reason why there are flaws in the first place.

i saw that analogy and it supported what i have been saying all along.

how can you not see that you are affirming my point right here?! "possible causes" means that you have reasons to disbelieve the story. i want to examine each and every one of those until either one irrefutably disproves the story or the story stands up to all scrutiny. why you are averse to this is beyond me because in an earlier post you agreed this is the way science works; disproof leads to knowledge.

you are? what makes you so sure?

goodness. i think you really agree with my point but you're just playing games with me to see how long i can take it.

"every properly computer budget" is exactly what i have been trying to point out to you; analagous to the gun, analogous to the "logical ability", etc. how did you get the knowledge of how to properly compute a budget? the fact that you use the word "properly" presupposes that you know of a different way to compute it. i want to know those ways and address each one of them in a process of elimination. i want to know where you got the knowledge from and why consider it to be trustworthy. why are you using it as a benchmark? you doubt the tyre prophecy. why? what standard are you using that your doubts are formed from? so far, you have only provided 4 flawed standards. do you have other, more substantial ones?

*programming note: you have yet to refute the idea that your critique preceeds from alternate ideas. all you have done is continue to repeat yourself. repetition is not a refutation. it shows you have no refutation.* you may resume your repetitions....

merely stating they do not is not a refutation. a refutation would be something like "your reasoning is incorrect because of reasons 1, 2, 3, ...." can you provide WHY they don't? i provided WHY they did.

sigh. ok, how have i misrepresented your position? is everyone just supposed to take you at your word or can you provide how you have been misrepresented?

another unsupported repetition. perhaps you could actually support your claim. BTW, you still haven't refuted that your critique preceeds from alternate ideas. you have just stated in your best second-grade "nuh-unh". what's ironic is that i'm even trying to use your own method, scientific process of elimination, and you don't want to. explain how that is not suspicious. furthermore, you haven't proven that it is the standard you claim it is, much less that there really even is such a standard.

in post #28, you stated "In point of fact, the way that science works is not to prove things right, so much as to prove things wrong. Science disproves, rather than proves." you aptly cite the scientific method as proving through disproof. i'm asking for us to employ this tried and true technique to this issue.

well, this isn't the sauron we've all come to know. i sure thought you were more capable than that.

wait, if something validates what the bible says, then we've already passed the point of the invalidation process, meaning it withstood critique. you're skipping a step. pick any part of the bible and tell us why it's bunk. be specific. use any source or information you deem appropriate. this is the part of the process you have been avoiding all along. the recent discussion has been the tyre prophecy. you've already provided 4 criticisms that have been shown to be faulty. do you have any others?

you still haven't shown what affirmative claim i made.

whatever. you provide the grounds and i will try to meet them.

not only does your response here not refute the point, you once again resort to personal attacks perhaps because you have no substantive point to make.

i am going to test as soon as you provide a valid test. i think you really understand that the appeal to probability is fallacy, you're just playing games with me again. what gives me this impression is that you haven't shown how an appeal to probability is not a fallacy (despite the fact that it appears on most logical fallacy lists). you just keep repeating yourself as if we're all supposed to just take your word without any support.

i agree. you provide what will prove the point to you and we'll go forward.

do you even know what it is? can you define it? can you show how:
1. your claim is NOT an appeal
2. appeal to probability is NOT a fallacy

no, i don't think you understand. you are claiming that it must necessarily have been because others were. that is the logical fallacy. BTW, according to your own criteria, you should have to support your claim.

i explained HOW the analogy was flawed. you didn't refute my explanation. you just resort to the second grade "nuh-unh". i asked you to be specific in how i was incorrect. you don't, you just expect everyone to just take your word at face value. what's ironic is that you continually claim you have this higher critical standard but then commit these acts of denial.

"types of words, turns of phrase, mismatched styles of writing, verses being strangely out of place" has nothing to do with "edits, fakes, copyist errors". the way to spot edits, fakes and copyist errors is to compare one copy to other copies, character for character, not the aforementioned techniques. those techniques can be used to analyze literary style, indication of education, personal phases, social inclinations, etc.

yes we could. if any two copies are different, then there has been editing.

you make the claim there are edits but won't support your claim. i am willing to address it if you will just let me know where these edits are.

this is an example of a strawman. i cited a source (not wikipedia) that represents what the bible claims. convince me why that date is wrong. this should be easy for someone of your intellectual stature.

another strawman. perhaps you could quote me where i stated it was accurate.

i have asked you over and over what would constitute as proof for you that it was or wasn't fulfilled.

yes it is and i explained why. this response doesn't address my statements. perhaps you could read them again and address them.

now we're finally getting somewhere. is that the situation here? if not, the test doesn't tell us anything.

wait, you provide a flawed test and you're complaining about my education.

no, i showed how they are flawed. but you didn't refute that. you revert back to the second grade responses.

my statement didn't contradict this.

i asked a question. you haven't answered the question.

i never said anything different.

great. let's inspect for later editing. how are we to spot it? how will we know it if we come across it? what would prove to you there was, or wasn't, editing?

great. let's agree on the test, and i'll run the test.

what test can we run to find out if they do or don't?

critics claim that the people who witnessed Jesus post resurrection were hallucinating. why is it not the same case here?

what evidence was left behind?

how can science test miracles?

it's not circular because the conclusion (executed by omnipotent God) does not invoke the premise (miraculous event) in the way you are trying to make it so. i am not saying the event is miraculous because it was executed by the supernatural or the God must have executed it because it was miraculous. i am saying that the event can't be scientifically tested because the event in question is supposedly the result of supernatural intervention. there is no scientific test for that. your requirement that extraordinary evidence be provided is an impossible request. therefore the request is faulty. additionally, if there is no supernatural, i completely agree the event would be unbelievable without extraordinary evidence. but the event was alledgedly the product of supernatural forces. if that's the case, the event is less unbelievable.

wow. i'm impressed. you actually supported one of your claims. first, i'm not sure how reliable an elementary school website is. you earlier claimed that quality sources are required. does this qualify? second, it is incorrect because it doesn't state WHY the claimant must bear the burder. i have already addressed this point.

is this a reliable source?

this sentence does nothing to address that the critic is assuming some other set of events is true. it just omits dealing with it.

i'm pleased that you provided rare support for your cause, but it's still inconclusive. *cue the sauron retort "nuh-unh"*

i have a suggestion for you. check the brittanica article for burden of proof (i have 2002). there's a really interesting and pertinent sentence in there.

last, it didn't escape me that you failed to provide who maintains this "standard of debate".

utterly false. what claims have i tossed out?

so you don't have an answer to the question. that's all you had to say.

i have asked you again and again what would prove the point to you so that i can meet your requirement. what template can i apply to this situation?

what tampering occurred in other books of the bible?

you listed 5 criteria for me to use to prove the prophecy was divinely inspired. unfortunately, the criteria were flawed. can you either respond to my critique or provide other, more viable, criteria?

i did? where?

no answer for the question? let's try again; DOES THAT INCLUDE YOU?

i wasn't relying on popular opinion. what i was pointing out is that your beliefs are not ecumenically accepted. can you convince them that your beliefs should be accepted by them?

and what scientific evidence could exist? could you be more specific?

all addressed in the other thread. if there are any points from that thread you disagree with, bring them up here and i can clear it up for you.

since i have made no affirmative position, there aren't mistakes to point out. all i have done is to question your skepticism and ask you why you are skeptical of the subjects in this thread. so far, every one of the skeptical criteria you have advanced is flawed. we can review them if you need to.

the real question, which you seem to not want to answer, is WHY are they unconvinced. what about the case is poor? what would be convincing?

in order for you to say the case is poor, you absolutely must have a standard that you are using. that standard, your version of the events in question, is what i have been after all this time.

just in case it has been forgotten; the claimant bears no burden of proof whatsoever. anyone can claim anything at anytime. the ability to make a claim does not place any burden on that person. burden appears when someone is going to affirm or deny the case and the burden is only on the person who is seeking to be convinced one way or the other. otherwise, the claim can be dismissed altogether, i.e. someone who doesn't care one way or the other. this is not "rewriting" the rules of debate as you say. if you think i am wrong, then you will be able to succinctly point out the error. so far, all you have done is retort "nuh-unh".

could you please show any claims that i have made that i didn't support?

post #16 - "We know that such editing has taken place in various other books." i'm looking all through this thread and i don't see any support for it despite my asking for it over and over.

i said that ambiguity is subjective. in order for you to disprove that, you would need to define clarity in such a way that everyone on earth would agree with the definition. but you don't do that. you just repeat your standard "nuh-unh".

here is my point: there are people who disagree with you. they think the prophecy is clear and you are wrong. what makes your judgment more authoritative than theirs? this is how i have been asking you to support your claims. convince those people that, despite all the historical events they have laid out to match the prophecy which makes it clear to them, they are mistaken. this should be a cakewalk for an intellectual giant like yourself. unfortunately, i get the feeling your response of "it's not clear because i said so" is on it's way.

i have been asking and asking what these ways are. perhaps you are stalling for time while you compile them.

i have already asked you who were the people who knew in advance that nebuchadnezzar would attack tyre.

hence my asking you we need a test to perform so we can either prove there was manipulation or the prophecy can't be shown to have been manipulated.

i'm asking how we can show that there was no meddling

i said it's vague which means that you should add details so that your response is more specific.

you don't even understand your own posts. environment or setting is broad, not specific. usually milieu refers to social conditions (notice the plurality) in which a particular thing develops. what i am asking you is to be more specific. what particular factors are we talking about?

the problem with this response is that the factors you cite, he was an advisor to a king, doesn't yield the particulars we need to prove the point. we need something more specific.

i have asked you what evidence could possibly exist that it is genuine prophecy. if there can be none, then the request is faulty and we need another set of criteria.

more avoidance of the point i brought up. just more repetition on your part which is continuing to delay pertinent discussion of the topic.

hint: you don't show how my response is incorrect. you just state that it is.

wrong, it means that the criteria were flawed to begin with which is absolutely irrelevant to the veracity of the candidate in question. we need a different set of criteria. what criteria can exist other than the flawed ones you have presented already?

they aren't dumbed down, they're different.

NECESSARY TO MEET THE STANDARD FOR WHOM? in order for answer the question, you must show that the standard in question is unavoidable.

citing some flawed criteria does not constitute a standard. a standard is by definition, something that is agreed upon by everyone.

why would you refuse to provide a template? you get to set your own rules. i'm not trying to open a new can of worms. i'm trying to fulfill your request that the text be tested.

that's not the conclusion that the data yields. the most that can be said is that there is no conclusive proof that the transaction in question was documented, not that it was illegal or that he is not worthy.

this is not entirely true. first, the standards aren't "high" as you claim, just specific. second, it's not that the candidate didn't meet the standard. the committee couldn't find the necessary documentation to verify their criteria were met within the time frame available. it remains possible that he did meet the standard.

:banghead: i have been asking WHY the case is weak.

another unsupported response. perhapsyou wouldn't mind showing HOW you are correct instead of just expecting us to accept what you say because you say it. and BTW, yes i did. feel free to go back and read it again.

and who made them authoritative?

since the first ones sucked, why didn't you cite these "others"?

good grief. we don't need a new thread. we can analyze them in THIS thread. as i said before, bring any responses or sources you feel appropriate.

wow. and you complain about strawman arguments. first, i did show how they were flawed which you don't even refute. second, i haven't even tried to show fulfillment. i have asked you what your objections are and what would be proof to you, both of which you fail to provide.

no you haven't. i should start reciprocating every time you do that.

i never denied that. but i have asked you over and over what would be proof to you. furthermore, i have asked how miracles or divine inspiration can be verified.

no, i asked who knew in advance. i also asked how would we prove that ezekiel made a good guess.

i'm asking you what would be proof to you.

no you didn't. none of those 3 addressed the question. read it again.

no, they don't. i showed that and you didn't refute it. you just repeat your original assertion.

garbage. SHOW HOW they are reasonable and then you might have a case.

no, avoided. you said you would after i proved my case. how can i prove my case when you won't even tell me what you would consider proof?

yes it is. i gave a precise definition of how it is. you didn't refute it. you resorted to your second grade retort again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_probability

before you start your "wikipedia isn't a source" garbage, click on the logical fallacies link. go to the bottom and check out all the sources.

more vague statements by you. why don't you have the courage to show specifically WHICH points were unanswered?

:rolling:

no you weren't. i addressed SPECIFIC points. you can't even tell us here what points you think weren't addressed.

i did, in that thread.

the thread was over 400 posts. i didn't wave my hands. i stuck around to address each and every point.

mata leao

hey Sauron: Was Ezekiel treated reasonably well in Babylon? YES or NO? you can run, but you cant hide!!!!

bfniii

so how are we to know when the text was composed?

"A later addition is most certainly a reasonable possibility since Ezekiel called Nebuchadnezzar a "king of kings" and said that his army would go down "all" of the streets of the mainland settlement. There is no evidence that that happened."

johnny, this is the second time you have asked for this and the second time i have provided it. you first asked for it in post #19 and i quoted you in post #23. this is also one of many times you contradicted yourself in terms of your claims. would you mind proofing your posts a little more thoroughly?

i know of no absolute way to fix composition date. there are some clues, but ultimately, we're relying on what someone else recorded.

and they would be?

i wasn't aware i made such an assumption

we can know as well as we know anything else from antiquity

i have told you multiple times to contact whomever you wish however many times you wish. ask them whatever you like. bring their response here and we can analyze it. why do you keep grandstanding about it. just do it.

not being able to accurately date the prophecy does not invalidate the prophecy. if that doesn't make sense to you, just let me know and i will try to clarify it for you.

i want to answer your question. what about the prophecy could possibly indicate divine inspiration? in other words, what would be proof to you?

bfniii

i understand it perfectly. it seems that you don't understand what it implies. i'll let you answer my challenge to you on how we can know the composition date first.

funny, i can't seem to get you to answer questions. given this propensity for avoidance, why shouldn't we assume you're afraid to answer them? i can catalogue all the unanswered questions for you if you like.

what claims?

that's not the case at all as i have pointed out. you don't even refute it. you just "nuh-unh".

wow. you have totalled missed the points i make. i have said all along a person is free to dismiss the subject altogether.

i haven't made any such claim in this thread. what i have done is patiently question your skepticism and ask you what you consider evidence or proof. all we have to do is outline the standard you would like used in each case and then you get to trounce the idiotic christians and their anachronistic beliefs.

whatever. i'm perfectly willing to accept that any work from antiquity can't absolutely be dated. what that implies does not bother me one bit. however, i wonder if you are aware of what it implies.

they are known as well as anything else from antiquity

strawman. let's see if you have the guts to answer my requests for your standards. the thread is more than 60 posts long and you're still tap dancing

and i debunked each one. you don't even refute that. you just repeat that they are valuable.

oh yeah? how? you made the claim, so let's see you meet your burden.

you're right about that, they're inconclusive standards.

could you please quote where i have done that?

on the contrary, i have pointed out many instances of you doing just that. i can quote all of them if you like. i suspect that you know that you are guilty of that and that i can quote where you have done it. i seems that you are deflecting so that you aren't discovered to be guilty of it. conversely, could you please quote where i have done that?

which you didn't refute. you just repeated yourself. i even asked you to provide me an example so that you can show how stupid bible believers are. for some suspicious reason (maybe you are looking up some examples), you have been combatively averse to that.

the criteria are flawed as i pointed out. you didn't refute it. you just repeated that they aren't.

Sauron

1. Not incorrect - just inconvenient.

2. Prove a miracle? That's your problem - you're the one with the extraordinary claim.

3. You seem to be of the opinion that if you can't find the extraordinary evidence to back up your claim, that somehow the standards aren't fair. Wrong. The problem is not with the standards; the problem is with the spectacular claim you are presenting. It's truly a problem of your own making: if you weren't making a claim with such grandiose characteristics, and next-to-zero evidence, you wouldn't be in this situation.

It is the established rules of debate. I've given you the links twice already. I'm not going to keep doing it, just because you need to keep up a pretense of not understanding.

(correcting notes) Armchair psychologist unable to face his own failures, projects flaws onto his opponent.

I already did. That is what this series of posts is about.

1. Notice that I put the word in quotes.

2. The point remains: I am not obligated to create or offer an alternative explanation, just because I reject yours as being poorly reasoned or unsupported.

No, here I tell you that the two examples I gave you were to explain a concept that you are pretending to misunderstand. In both of those examples I wasn't obligated to have an alternate theory, merely to reject the badly reasoned one I used in the example. The same is true here with your lame reasoning: I don't have to have an alternate idea, in order to chuck your unsupported conclusion into the trash can.

I already have done this. Will you be paying attention anytime soon? This century, maybe?

1. I don't have to know what happened to your peanut butter sandwich, in order to reject the 'hungry alien' theory outright.

2. I also didn't have to know the details of my co-workers budget, or what the right financial numbers were, in order to reject her conclusions - all I needed to know is that she left out critical details and had unsupported assumptions in her figures. Knowing that, I rejected her budget.

1. I said your "education", not education level.

2. Before you start claiming that you are being treated unfairly, let's remember that I've had to repeat the burden of proof definition for you 40 or 50 times now. So whatever your education level, your personal education lacks any exposure to the rules of debate.

No, not as phrased. Again: will you be paying attention anytime soon? Here is my position:

1. Anyone who takes the affirmative position bears the burden of proof.
2. Extraordinary events require extraordinary proof.

Read the words slowly in order to figure out the difference between what you said, and what my position is.

False. Your critiques were shot down; and you were unable to show any flaws in my theories.

Now you've stooped to ordinary, run-of-the-mill lying. I must have said 50 times now: I do not have to be in possession of an alternate theory, in order to reject your poorly reasoned conclusion. My two ideas were advanced to demonstrate that very fact. So I do deny 3, and quite frankly I am wondering about your intellectual honesty. Like Gandhi said "I almost became a christian; until I met one."

Not in the context of our Tyre discussion, you cannot. This entire thread has been an exercise in trying to pin you down and see if you have any evidence for your claims about dating and Ezekiel's Tyre prophecy. In that context, I haven't made any claims.

Of course I addressed your point - such as it was. The point you raised was a childish attempt at distracting the discussion and baiting me into accepting the burden of proof. I turned back that attempt.

Actually, since you bear burden of proof and we are now into the second week of this discussion without you presenting any evidence, it is your continued stalling that is suspicious.

Those are all tasks for the affirmative side to fulfill, in making its affirmative case. Any further attempts to shift the burden of proof will likewise be turned back.

And as I said already: put forth your evidence and your suggested criteria (groundwork), and we'll see if we agree on them or not.

After you present your groundwork and your affirmative evidence.


Hardly nebulous.

1. You make a claim.
2. You either present no evidence at all, or evidence that doesn't support the claim.

Pretty clear, actually.

Wrong. All it requires is that I notice when your evidence doesn't support your claim. It does not require me to have (or know of) another explanation.

And as I just said above: wrong. All it requires is that I notice when your evidence doesn't support your claim. It does not require me to have (or know of) another explanation.

Uh, no - it did not. In the sandwich analogy I do not have to know what happened to the sandwich. I might have no fucking idea. But I feel safe in rejecting the hungry alien theory.

Because it does not confirm your point. The purpose of the sandwich analogy is to show the failure of evidence to support a claim. I spotted that failure without having an alternative explanation -- which according to your busted model, should not be possible.

Let me make it even clearer to you: let's suppose you told me that your exanth was missing. I don't know what an exanth is. I have never heard of the word; I don't even know if it truly exists or not. But if you tell me that an alien stole it, I'm going to reject that explanation. I am in a total vacuum of knowledge about what an exanth is, I cannot possibly come up with any valid scenarios about why it is missing. In spite of that, I can still reject your alien theory. I do not need to know anything about the subject at all in order to pick apart the explanation.

No, I don't agree with your point -- but you're playing games so that you don't have to give affirmative evidence for your claims.

No, it presupposes that I know of several IMPROPER ways to compute it. Just like I know of several IMPROPER ways to form an argument - for example, the way that you are trying to support your claims.

And I want to see your affirmative evidence, and your groundwork for evaluating the evidence. Once we get through that -- if you ever muster up the honesty and courage, that is -- you'll know everything you ever wanted to know about my standards. But until you actually get off your lazy ass and make your arguments, we are stuck.

** programming note: children's fantasy hour is pre-empted by reality TV.

Uh, yes I have refuted that idea. And you've continued to pretend to miss the point: identifying flaws in the logical construction of an argument does not presuppose that I have any answers or alternative explanations. I might have such alternatives, or I might not. But there is nothing that requires that I have them, merely to point out flaws in how you support your argument.

It certainly is, if I am repeating the facts. Your inability (or feigned difficulty) to understand is not a rebuttal.

Well, your claim for a rebuttal was based on nothign more than you stating it. So if you think they were rebutted, you need to show that.

1. My word is substantially more reliable than yours.
2. The original exchange between us was as follows:

Being unconvinced by someone else's weak argument does not create a burden of proof on the skeptic.

to you, NOTHING creates a burden of proof on the skeptic. how convenient.

My position is in bold italics, above. Your snotty comment above is a strawman of my position. QED.

I already have - twice, with links. Pretending not to see them isn't going to work.

Yes I have. And I did it again, above.

1. My methodology for discussing this is not the scientific method - that methodology would be the established rules of debate, which you continue to try and wriggle free from;

2. My methodology for testing your evidence (if it even exists) and your claims will be the scientific method, yes. But the scientific method requires that claims be supported with testable evidence. As soon as you get your case together in a coherent presentation, we can proceed with these two techniques.

I can do many things, but I cannot judge your case before you even make it. And since you are trying mightily to avoid making it, I'm guessing that I'll never get the chance to judge it because you know better than to even bring it forth.

No, you wanted me to show what invalidated a claim. My response was "I can't do that, until you tell me upon what grounds you consider it to be validated." It's fairly obvious what I meant; I would think you would have better sense than to try to score points off a pretended misunderstanding of my comment.

You haven't shown any criticisms I brought to be faulty. You've wished it; but never proven it.

You are taking the affirmative side for:

(a) the authenticity of the bible;
(b) the divine inspiration of the Tyre prophecy; and
(c) the pre-dating of the text pre-dating the invasion itself.

If you want to withdraw from this debate because you have decided not to support a, b or c - please let us know.

And again: any attempts to shift the burden of proof will be turned back. It is your job to provide the framework by which you will claim that you have met the affirmative burden of proof. And I certainly *do* suggest that you start your argument by stating up front your conditions of success: if we don't agree on those conditions, then your entire presentation could be a waste of time.

My response does refute your point. And I am serious about your laziness. As I said above - this is week two, and you have yet to present your affirmative case.

And as I just got through saying right above here: attempts to shift the burden of proof will be turned back. It is your job to provide the framework by which you will claim that you have met the affirmative burden of proof.

What I have presented is not appeal to probability. It merely recognizes the tainted nature of the bible. In a tainted environment, if you want your candidate to be counted as pure, you must prove it to be pure.

And again: attempts to shift the burden of proof will be turned back. It is your job to provide the framework by which you will claim that you have met the affirmative burden of proof.

I know what it is. However, my position is not an appeal to probability.


1. No, I understand quite fully.

2. I am not saying that it must necessarily be so - I am merely saying that it *might* be so.

3. I then conclude that because there is the taint of doubt present, your affirmative case must remove that taint of doubt.

I have merely denied your claim of appeal to probability. You haven't proven that yet, so I have no burden until after you prove your claim. He who claims first, has first burden of proof.

More ordinary, run-of-the-mill lying?

1. You did not "explain how the analogy was flawed". You merely said that we couldn't test for edits, because we don't have the original manuscripts. That ignores the fact that we NEVER have the original manuscripts for ANY bible book -- yet we can still detect the edits. The obvious conclusion is that original mss aren't needed for this purpose; there must be some other way to detect edits that doesn't rely on having original mss.

2. And yes - I did refute your explanation. The above point #1 is (another repetition of) the previous refutation I gave for your so-called 'explanation.'

Also dishonest. I provided more than a "nuh-uhh"; I pointed out that we regularly detect edits without mansucripts. I also gave three examples of how that is done: types of words, turns of phrase, mismatched styles of writing, verses being strangely out of place;

And as we just saw right above, you're quite the example of christian honesty -- I provided everything you asked for, and then you decided to lie and say that I didn't.

Wrong. As I said: your education is in sore need of exposure to the topic of biblical criticism.

Incorrect. Just because they are different, does not mean that one of them must be correct. They might both be wrong, and the original mss not represented by either of the two bad copies. As I said: a basic understanding of textual criticism would be really useful, if you want to discuss this.

Your affirmative claim was first in this discussion. As soon as you present your evidence for your claim, then you will be in a position to demand evidence from others. He who claims first, also has first burden of proof.

Strawman? Not hardly. Your post is still online; best not to tell a fib about it. Here was the exchange:

Originally Posted by noah
Can you date the Tyre prophecy? If so please let us know what criteria you are using to establish the date of the prophecy. Best, Noah

sure. according to this article, March/April 587/586. the article cites several sources for this information.

No strawman here; you were asked if you could date the prophecy, and you said "Sure".

2. Your only cited source was Wikipedia. You pointed out their footnoted sources, but you could not connect any of those sources to the specific question of the dating. So we are still waiting for you to present proof of the dating for this prophecy.

1. You haven't presented any evidence for your date yet.

2. Furthur childish attempts at distracting the discussion and baiting me into accepting the burden of proof will likewise be turned back.

1. See the above.
2. If you now would like to deny that this is your position? Fine. Then we can drop this point.

And again: any attempts to shift the burden of proof will be turned back. It is your job to provide the framework by which you will claim that you have met the affirmative burden of proof.

No, you claimed it was flawed - but your explanation is incorrect. Again: dentifying flaws in the logical construction of an argument does not presuppose that I have any answers or alternative explanations. I might have such alternatives, or I might not. But there is nothing that requires that I have them, merely to point out flaws in how you support your argument.

1. The response *does* address your statments.
2. I have already addressed your statements.

1. Your claim was that we couldn't test an ancient text except by comparison. I just provided a hypothetical example of why that is wrong. You said that this method could not work, when in actuality, it can.

2. Whether this is the particular situation here or not is irrelevant - you tried to rule out this methodology on principle, without (as usual) understanding textual criticism or stopping to think.

3. And in point of fact, a test for one segment of text may not work for another segment of text, since each chunk of text displays different characteristics - a text may pass the anachronism test with flying colors, yet fail another test and be ruled a fake.

The test is not flawed; your understanding of criticism is, however.

1. You did not show how they were flawed.
2. I gave complete answers which you have yet to refute.

And again: any attempts to shift the burden of proof will be turned back. It is your job to provide the framework by which you will claim that you have met the affirmative burden of proof. And I certainly *do* suggest that you start your argument by stating up front your conditions of success: if we don't agree on those conditions, then your entire presentation could be a waste of time.

And again: any attempts to shift the burden of proof will be turned back. It is your job to provide the framework by which you will claim that you have met the affirmative burden of proof.

And again: any attempts to shift the burden of proof will be turned back. It is your job to provide the framework by which you will claim that you have met the affirmative burden of proof.

I don't understand the question. Seriously.

1. You seem to be the only one insisting that such 'miracles' never leave behind any evidence. Why would you automatically assume that right out of the starting gate? Other than to try and create an excuse to not even bother lifting a finger to support your claim, I mean?

2. Otherwise, the answers to your questions are part of your homework assignment that you automatically gave yourself, way back when you took the affirmative position; they are your problems to find out. And if little or no evidence is left behind, you will have a very hard time proving your case.

It is circular, because the premise and the conclusion both rest upon the same unproven claim; (existence of an omnipotent God, who just happened to act in the way you claim.)

But you haven't proven that any such event of supernatural intervention occurred. So you want us to assume that it did, and then accept your conclusion that said event also can't be tested. 100% pure circularity.



Incorrect, for two reasons:

1. There are plenty of scientific tests - miracles simply fail those tests. The problem is not with the tests; it is with the huge gap between the claim and the supporting evidence.

2. Extraordinary evidence is the standard, because extraordinary claims have been brought. You are merely trying to excuse yourself from the evidentiary standards because you know you'll never meet them.

3. Meeting these standards may very well be impossible. That is a perfectly possible outcome, even with non-religious claims. That does not mean that the standards are inappropriate to the task. This isn't some kind of children's test where we design standards so that the kids have a reasonable chance of achieving them. We don't 'dumb down' the standards until a pre-determined percentage of your religious claims can successfully meet them, either. Your inability to meet them does not equate to the standards being faulty. The ruler used to measure the claim is based upon the nature of the claim, not upon your subjective ability to measure up to it.

3. The standards are derived from the nature of the claim, and you do not get a 'mercy exemption' merely because your claims are failing to meet them. So you telling me that it is impossible to meet the standards doesn't carry any weight with me, since that is one of several known possible outcomes when trying to defend extraordinary claims.

Are you going to present proof for the supernatural? That would seem to be a prerequisite for the second half of your position.

Circularity again.

I support all my claims. You are simply frustrated because you haven't been successful in switching your claims (and burden of proof) over to my back.

And again we see the intellectual (dis)honesty of so-called christians.

1. I gave two sources, not just one.

2. My claim that went along with the grade school website was that the burden of proof was such an elementary part of the debate process that even kids knew it. In order to prove that kids know something, an elementary school citation is right on target. There is nothing per se wrong with an elementary school citation anyhow, as long as it accurately reflects the facts - which is why I presented the 2nd citation from www.nizkor.org, to buttress that fact. You should take notes here on how to properly support an argument, by the way.

3. I notice that instead of admitting your failure on the location of burden of proof, you are now trying to create another of your famous distractions.

How lame. The citation is not "incorrect".

1. The claimant bears the burden because they are the one bringing the claim and seeking to change the status quo or convince someone. These are the same points that the elementary school citiation made, thus refuting your assertion that the source didn't state WHY the claimant bears the burden.

2. You have not addressed that point; you have merely tried to wiggle out of it by re-writing the rules of debate.

If you have evidence to the contrary, then present it.

That is because the critic is not assuming any such thing. Again: identifying flaws in the logical construction of an argument does not presuppose that I have any answers or alternative explanations. I might have such alternatives, or I might not. But there is nothing that requires that I have them, merely to point out flaws in how you support your argument.

1. It is not inconclusive, it is merely inconvenient. You tried to claim the source was inadequate, but I quickly disposed of both of your phantom reasons above.

2. Since your entire 'rebuttal' (such as it is) amounted to nothing more than "nuh-uh", you have precious little room to talk here.

I have already done so (I have 2005). There is nothing in the article that helps your cause.

There are several such standards. They all have this is common, however, that they place the burden of proof upon the claimant. For example:
http://ccms.ntu.edu.tw/~karchung/debate1.htm
1. For the dating of the Tyre prophecy[/b]

Your post is still online; best not to tell a fib about it. Here was the exchange:

Originally Posted by noah
Can you date the Tyre prophecy? If so please let us know what criteria you are using to establish the date of the prophecy. Best, Noah

sure. according to this article, March/April 587/586. the article cites several sources for this information.

I gave you an answer - don't expect me to acquiesce to doing your homework for you. It is your argument that quality and evidence are subjective; let's see your argument, then.

Another task for the affirmative side to fulfill, in making its affirmative case. Any further attempts to shift the burden of proof will likewise be turned back.

1. I suggested criteria from a christian website; you are free to use them, or not. I happen to think they are rather good, but you don't have to use them if you think you have better ones.

2. The five criteria were not flawed; you simply could not meet them. Your failures (or more precisely, laziness) are not the same as a flaw in the criteria themselves;

3. Providing a set of criteria by which to judge your affirmative claims is -- yet again -- another task for the affirmative side to fulfill, in making its affirmative case. Any further attempts to shift the burden of proof will likewise be turned back.

There is a whole thread over there bogged down with posts between you and Johnny Skeptic. The clear reading of that thread is that you believe this was an inspired prophecy. If you now, at this later date, want to change your mind on that point, then fine -- we can wrap this up by saying that bfniii is not taking an afffirmative position for divine inspiration of the Tyre prophecy.

Just let us know.

1. I gave you an answer. Go back and read again.

2. Demanding answers from your opponent -- when you yourself have been extraordinarily evasive and repeatedly dishonest -- is not a strong negotating position.

1. I am not relying upon my beliefs being accepted. You were the one appealing to "traditional position" and other such logical fallacies; not I.

2. I am not the affirmative position in this debate; you are. I have no burden of proof; you do.

And again: any attempts to shift the burden of proof will be turned back. It is your job to provide the framework by which you will claim that you have met the affirmative burden of proof. And I certainly *do* suggest that you start your argument by stating up front your conditions of success: if we don't agree on those conditions, then your entire presentation could be a waste of time.

No, they were not addressed in the other thread, as evidenced by the questions you left hanging and items you failed to prove. The various claims you made -- being as how they were not original in the least -- were also addressed in a second thread, the self-named Tyre thread ("The destruction of Tyre").

You did make an affirmative position, for the dating of Tyre. See the above.

1. You haven't "questioned skepticism"; your thrust has been entirely elsewhere. Your entire effort has been devoted to clever attempts to shift the burden of proof and re-write the rules of debate. You are fooling no one, and you are not succeeding in either attempt.

2. There have been exactly zero flaws in the criteria I have used. Reviewing them won't help, unless you have better arguments this time than the last.

I already answered this about, oh, a thousand times. Because you have brought zero evidence to support your case. Do you plan to change that status quo anytime soon?

Wrong. And again: identifying flaws in the logical construction of an argument does not presuppose that I have any answers or alternative explanations. I might have such alternatives, or I might not. But there is nothing that requires that I have them, merely to point out flaws in how you support your argument.

I have not forgotten; you are simply wrong. The claimant always bears the burden of proof.

It isn't the ability to make the claim which creates the burden.
It is the fact that the person decided to go ahead and do so.

What a load.

Except that the person making the claim is, in fact, affirming the truth of it. That is part and parcel of making the claim in the first place.

These games you play -- do you really enjoy them? :huh:

You made claims for the accuracy of the Tyre prophecy, its divine inspiration, and the dating of the prophecy. If you now wish to change your position, let us know.

1. And as soon as you provide evidence for your claims, you will be in a position to demand that from others. I suggest you start a new thread, and we can discuss the edits in the other books there.

2. I've asked for your affirmative evidence and framework for evaluation "over and over" - perhaps you should answer that first, hmm?

I don't have to disprove it. All I have to do is realize that you are engaged in a reductio ad absurdum argument here. "The book is red" - clear? Yet there will always be someone, somewhere in the world who will say that it is ambiguous.

I don't need to define anything. On the other hand, you do need to demonstrate that your candidate prophecy can clear the ambiguity hurdle. If it can't do that, then perhaps you should select another prophecy.

1. I already understand your point.
2. You have just provided an excellent example of MY point with the 70 week prophecy: the fact that groups of christians disagree on it prove that it is ambiguous.
3. Accept your loss, select another prophecy, and move on.

Not my job. You need to show that your prophecy achieves the clarity hurdle. That is yet another task for the affirmative side to fulfill, in making its affirmative case. Any further attempts to shift the burden of proof will likewise be turned back.

1. You raised yet another childish attempt at distracting the discussion and baiting me into accepting the burden of proof. I turned back that attempt.

2. You need to prove that it IS clear; I don't have to prove the opposite.

1. I am not stalling; I am simply not going to do your work for you.

2. Again: any attempts to shift the burden of proof will be turned back. It is your job to provide the framework by which you will claim that you have met the affirmative burden of proof. And I certainly *do* suggest that you start your argument by stating up front your conditions of success: if we don't agree on those conditions, then your entire presentation could be a waste of time.

I don't have to provide any names. I provided an example of a particular scenario that you have to rule out, in order to satisfy criterion #4:

4. Likelihood: The prophecy can’t be just a good guess.

You have to provide details of Ezekiel's life that rule out the possibility that he was just guessing, or found out about the invasion from his daily routine or from reading a news report in "The Babylon Times". Remember: science rules things out, not in.

And again: any attempts to shift the burden of proof will be turned back. 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.

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

1. It is not vague. It is a starting point. If I had just said "go study Babylon" that would have been vague. But I did not say that. I said "historical study of the milieu and time period."

2. The rest of it you need to flesh out yourself; I am not going to do your homework for you.

I understand my posts very well - and I understand yours well enough to detect games when I see them.

As I said above: you asked for a starting point, I gave it to you. I'm not going to spoon feed your own argument to you. My; how lazy these christians are.

1. That is not the definition of milieu.
2. Milieu is not plural; that would be milieux.

Excuse me? I cited no factors. I tossed out a hypothetical scenario to refute your claim that studying the milieu and time period were too vague to give useful data.

1. And again: any attempts to shift the burden of proof will be turned back. It is your job to provide the framework by which you will claim that you have met the affirmative burden of proof. And I certainly *do* suggest that you start your argument by stating up front your conditions of success: if we don't agree on those conditions, then your entire presentation could be a waste of time.

2. The fact that your candidate prophecy cannot meet the criteria does not equate to a fault in the criteria. It's an endemic problem with supernatural claims; it is not a shortcoming of the standards.

1. I am not avoiding your point; you have no point.
2. You have not demonstrated that my premises are incorrect.

Hint1: you do not show how my premises are incorrect; you just state that they are.
Hint2: since your claim precedes mine, you need to prove yours first.

Incorrect.

1. Failure to achieve the criteria is not the fault of the criteria; and you certainly have not shown that to be the case. Since your assertions carry no weight, after all.

2. We are not seeking a set of criteria that guarantees you a chance of making them; guaranteeing you a chance of success is NOT a design goal of the criteria. Instead, we are seeking a set of criteria that accurately account for the type and nature of the claims being made.

And again: any attempts to shift the burden of proof will be turned back. It is your job to provide the framework by which you will claim that you have met the affirmative burden of proof. And I certainly *do* suggest that you start your argument by stating up front your conditions of success: if we don't agree on those conditions, then your entire presentation could be a waste of time.

Sounds like you've been recycling creationist arguments. Yes, you certainly are trying to get the criteria 'dumbed down'. But the criteria are derived from the type of claim being made. They are not derived not from doing a quick sampling the quality of evidence available and loosening up the criteria accordingly.

You have the tail wagging the dog here; quality of evidence driving the evaluation criteria, instead of the evaluation criteria setting the bar for the quality of evidence.

What silly nonsense.

I suggested criteria from a christian website; you are free to use them, or not. I happen to think they are rather good, but you don't have to use them if you think you have better ones. You have yet to offer any evaluation standards -- despite multiple requests for them.

1. The standards are not flawed - the fact that your candidate prophecies fail to meet the standards is the fault of the prophecy - not the fault of the standard;

2. As I just finished saying: I suggested criteria from a christian website; you are free to use them, or not. I happen to think they are rather good, but you don't have to use them if you think you have better ones. You have yet to offer any evaluation standards -- despite multiple requests for them.

DON'T LIKE THE STANDARDS? THEN OFFER YOUR OWN. WE'LL DISCUSS AND SEE IF WE AGREE ON THEM OR NOT.

Because it isn't my job to do so. It is your job to provide the framework by which you will claim that you have met the affirmative burden of proof.

Fulfill my request? Oh, you are? Then stop stalling and offer your evaluative framework. The quicker you do your job, the quicker we can explore that framework and see if we can agree on it, or not.

My prediction is you will continue to stall. Let's see if I am right. :rolling:

As I might have predicted, you are incorrect - again.

Had the hypothetical panel in question merely been tasked with a neutral review of the evidence about this hypothetical judge, then you might be correct. But that was not the mandate of the panel. Their mandate was an affirmative mandate:

"All candidates for supreme court must be able to show a history of clean financial dealings. We are only looking for good candidates that are examples of financially upright judges."

With respect to this *particular* standard, the candidate judge fails because he cannot show a complete history of clean financial dealings. He has a stock transaction with an incomplete paper trail.

And yes - there is a lesson there for you, when you select your candidate prophecies. Don't pick ones that have incomplete paper trails.

1. The standards are quite high, actually.

2. All such evaluations have an implied timeframe; this is not a successful objection to my model.

Primarily because you refuse to present your evaluative framework and your associated evidence. An affirmative claim where the claimant simply refuses to offer proof is probably the weakest kind of case imaginable.

I have nothing to show here, since you have not demonstrated any flaws in my comments or statements. Simply claiming that you did is not sufficient. And since I already dealt with your (ahem) refutataions

Uh, no - you did not. The criteria are just fine; all you pointed out was that it would be nearly impossible or even impossible to achieve them. So what? That is not proof that the criteria are wrong; it is merely the result of trying to prove an extraordinary claim.

I suggested criteria from a christian website; you are free to use them, or not. I happen to think they are rather good, but you don't have to use them if you think you have better ones.

Go ahead - suggest your evaluative framework.

1. The first ones did not suck; they are in fact rather good.
2. The fact that you can't meet those criteria is the fault of your claim, not the criteria.
3. It's not my job to cite ANY such criteria; it is your job. I merely tossed out a set to keep the debate going.

1. Your job - not mine.

2. Again: any attempts to shift the burden of proof will be turned back. It is your job to provide the framework by which you will claim that you have met the affirmative burden of proof. And I certainly *do* suggest that you start your argument by stating up front your conditions of success: if we don't agree on those conditions, then your entire presentation could be a waste of time.

1. You did not show how the standards were flawed. All you showed is that you couldn't possibly meet them. That does not equate to being flawed.

2. I did refute you, using the same reasoning as #1 above.

Probably because providing an evaluative framework is your job - not mine.


And I have responded: it is your job to provide the framework by which you will claim that you have met the affirmative burden of proof.

Your job. Not mine. Get it yet?

I am not obligated to provide any information about who would know in advance. You need to rule out that possibility.

And I've already told you - it is your job to suggest an evaluative framework, not me.

They most certainly do address the question. If you feel otherwise, show why.

1. You did not show the requests to be unreasonable. You merely whined that you wouldn't be able to meet such standards. That is an indictment of your case; it is not a flaw with the standards.

2. I did refute you, using the same reasoning as #1 above.

1. Let's remember: I suggested criteria from a christian website; you are free to use them, or not. I happen to think they are rather good, but you don't have to use them if you think you have better ones.

2. I have already shown how they are reasonable; you have not made any counterclaims except to complain about the difficulty level of meeting them. Objection on the basis of "WAAA! Too hard!" doesn't carry any weight here;

3. As always, if you disagree about the standards, then you are free to suggest your own.

No, answered.

You can prove your case by:

1. offering your evaluative framework.
2. Then we will see if you and I can agree on it or not.
3. If we do, then your next step is to offer your evidence.

1. I did refute it.

2. Since your assertion of being in error was backed by no evidence, I don't really need to do anything else except deny and disagree with you on it. Perhaps if your claim of my error were actually rooted in something besides your opinion, I would need more. But it isn't. So I don't.

That's nice.

But my statement is not an appeal to probability. You don't even bother to read your own sources:
It assumes that because something could happen, it is inevitable that it will happen.

You have erroneously been operating under the assumption that invoking probability in any way automatically creates a logical fallacy. It does not.

The appeal to probability hinges on inevitability. But there is nothing about my statement on tainted texts that assumes Ezekiel was inevitably tainted. I merely note that such edits have occurred in the past, and you need to remove that possibility from the table in this particular instance, if you want to take the affirmative position.

I fully hold open the distinct possibility that Ezekiel has no such edits and is entirely free of such changes; that in itself is proof that my statement is not an appeal to probability. But we simply don't know one way or the other, so you need to test and remove any doubt.

You miss the point: I didn't see ANYof the critics' points answered effectively. None. You quite clearly zeroed out on each and every point. So feel free to pick ANY point that you think you answered particularly well. Then as soon as we are through with this debate -- but not before -- I will tell you why your answers in the other thread are so appallingly bad.

Edited to add: I see that Johnny Skeptic has posted in this thread as well, two below and after this post. He details some -- not all -- of the points you failed to address inadequately.


No, you most certainly did not. You tossed out a claim that you addressed them, but failed to show that in any way.


Funny; I didnt see them and could not find them. You'll have to point them out.

Yes, you stuck around - but your responses were nothing but handwaves. And now you're trying the same trick over here. Color me surprised.

spin

Was Ezekiel a real person? And how do you know?
When was the text of Ezekiel written? Before or after Alexander? And how do you know?
Why do you reify the literary figure called Ezekiel?