Vinnie

Good question.

6) The fulfillment event must be very difficult to be confidently predicted through non-supernatural means. This simply weeds out cheating and common sense. If I said, "Behold, the God Raktar says the sun will rise again tomorrow at 6. A.M." and it rises I did not accurately predict the future. Its common scientific knowledge that the sun rises every day. Also, self prophecy about trivial things is not valid. "I will drink decaffeinated coffee tomorrow at 2:22 Pacific time" is not a futuristic prophecy. That is merely a person listing their itinerary. Self-prophecy is valid but only abut nontrivial things that one can't easily bring about. The predicted event must be something that the author could not have known in advance otherwise his statements cannot be accepted as "supernatural prophecy".


Number 6 is intended to weed these out. Yet I can see how something like this could happen and not be detected.

While I say no, this is not supernatural prophecy (it cant be shown to be such without understanding more about the source of your prediction). The prophecy must be something that should not be able to be predicted naturally and as a rule it also cannot arise as a result of the prophecy itself.

I can see in theory where determining the second half of this issue would be vry difficult. But this theoretical difficulty is not very practical. I don't think most alleged prophecy suffers from this type of thing.

I suppose the most controlled prophecy is where the prophet and the group fufilling the event are unknown to one another. This should receive a mention in there. Will update later.

Vinnie

Godless Wonder

What brought the situation to my mind was a Discovery Channel show in which they stated that Jesus would have been aware of the prophecy that said that the Messiah would ride into Jerusalem through the East gate upon a donkey, and that this awareness is why he arranged things such that he would ride in through the east gate on a donkey. Metaphorically speaking, Jesus bought a lime-green VW beetle, Bozo-suit, and some candy, according to that TV show.

Amaleq13

Vinnie,


Have you found any Christian believers in prophecy who are willing to accept your criteria?

I hope you aren't holding your breath.

Vinnie

This was the only practical example I could think when reflecting upon the situation.

I wouldn't call this predictive prophecy so much as (if it occured) Jesus symbolically fufilling commonly shared messianic expectations.

Any would be messiah could have known this, acted it out and rode to Jerusalem on a donkey. As far as i am concerned, methodologlically, prophecy like these cannot be authenticicated.

Vinnie

Vinnie

In theory I am not sure why they should deny any of the criteria. I'm sure they would apply this same level of scrutiny to other "holy texts". God forbid they have to exame their own in a critical fashion

Vorkosigan

Why should the theist inability to face facts constitute a claim on my attention? When homeopaths claim that water molecules can "remember" the shape of molecules that are no longer present in the water, should I maintain that as a possibility even though no scientific basis for it exists?

No. At most, all you can do, scientifically, is find a polite way to say "get over it."

Unfortunately no scientific evidence exists to support this possibility. It is thus ruled out of the "debate." Just as the homeopath must demonstrate the possibility of his claims, so you must demonstrate that science is wrong. Merely claiming that "it could be wrong" is not enough.

Nor can we accept an argument from "some believe the prophecies are accurate." That's very nice, but how will you prove it? What scientific evidence can you muster?

And no, I did not "prematurely reject" your criteria. I simply looked at them in the light of the last 300 years of science, and the last 10,000 years of common sense.

Who is assuming atheism? There are no gods, and no evidence of such. Until evidence emerges, gods do not exist.

Your opinion is noted. Surely you do not find scholarly methodology ridiculous. But that is what you are proposing suspending here.

Yes, you can. Are you familiar with Pinch and Collins arguments against the possibility of psychic research?

...so says everyone who doesn't understand. You remind me of YECs claiming evolutionists are "arrogant."

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were playing a game only theists could play.

In any case, criteria are only pointers. Obviously nothing in them rules out miraculous prophecy. Once you've suspended the rules and made the supernatural possible, your criteria will no longer function -- because they are based on a ruled-governed, stable, predictable world which as an assumption of the exercise you claim doesn't exist. Any prophecy, anytime, could be miraculous.

They are easy to prove. The difficulty lies in getting others to accept.

Vorkosigan

Vinnie

Well since you argue against apologetics on the net from time to time I see that it does get your attention. If you want to meet them eye to eye and evaluate their claims this should get your attention. It certainly doesn't have to though.

How did you reach the conclusion that no scientific evidence exists to support it? I agree with that but the one way is pointing out that none exists. Saying none exists means you have to had at least evaluated potential candidates. Predictive prophecies allegedly fulfulled by Jesus and so on are candidates of "testable evidence". They of course fail at being accepted as supernatural prophecies but it can only be claimed there is no evidence after they are evaluated. You cannot escape evaluating claims or "studying nature" before concluding they do not exist in anture. My criteria seek to evaluate these claims and try to bridge a gap between differing worldviews so that at least meaningful discussion can occur. If you have no interest in this concept you don't have to respond.

Yesh it is obious. Thats why I stated exactly that.

Vinnie

Vorkosigan

Fair enough...I deserved that.

That is a good point. But saying no scientific evidence exists does not entail evaluating any candidates (though in point of fact science does that every day). The reason is that no scientific evidence can exist.

By arguing for the possibility you've suspended the rules about how evidence is to be gathered and evaluated. The consequences are severe....

Imagine that you are doing a test of ESP with a psychic in Seattle and a target person in NY. The man in NY reads off the cards, and in Seattle, the psychic nails them, all 25, several runs perfect. What does that mean?

Well, it is hard to pin down. Did the psychic read the target's mind? Maybe the target sent the data to the psychic somehow. Or maybe the psychic looked into the future and saw what the cards would be. Or maybe he reached out with his telekinetic power and stacked the deck. Or maybe the psychic reached out and altered everyone's minds. Or maybe not him or the target, but someone else associated with the experiment did those things. Or maybe the whole universe exists only as an imagining in the psychic's mind, or yours.

You actually have the same problem with your criteria. What miracle did you discover? Maybe the prophecy was fulfilled, or maybe your perception of the information, time and space was altered. Maybe it wasn't the Christian god, but some other one. Once you posit direct intervention of the Almighty in the world and get rid of the rules, you get on that night train to solipsism and there are no stations along that track. Implicitly recognizing this, some pantheists and even Christians argue that the universe is simply the mind of god.....

Thus, the real problem here is the word "scientific." How can you perform a controlled inquiry into a phenomen of which you have no knowledge, and have specifically disallowed any rule-governed behavior?

In other words, at least one reason I believe there is no scientific evidence for god is because no scientific evidence is even possible, really. At least as the supernatural is usually conceived.

Vorkosigan