lee_merrill

How is "Babylon will never be rebuilt" special pleading? How is "it will never be inhabited again" begging the question?

This seems to me denial of a plain fact, that this is a definite prediction, which cannot be after the fact, which can even now be tested!

Jack the Bodiless

Again, what part of "Alexander did not fail" do you not understand?

What part of "BIGGEST CITY IN THE WORLD" do you not understand?
So you're saying that, when Babylon was the BIGGEST CITY IN THE WORLD (which happened AFTER it was supposed to be destroyed)... it didn't have a "mayor"?

And later, shortly before Saddam evicted THOUSANDS of families from Babylon to make way for his palace... that community had no mayor (or equivalent) either?

And now that the site is a U.S. Army base... they have no commanding officer?
And yet it ISN'T "indisputable", because this has HAPPENED, and yet you're still DISPUTING it...
And yet it is a plain falsehood. Arguing that a plain falsehood is a "plain fact" is... well, "special pleading" is a rather polite way of putting it.

shirley knott

But on your own grounds (your definition, remember?), prediction is insufficient grounds to conclude prophecy.
So, we are safe in asserting that there are no prophecies, not one.
Your attempt to make the Babylon prediction into a prophecy is precisely a case of special pleading and question begging.

Or are we not to trust your words and your definitions?
Seems like a rational conclusion to me.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

lee_merrill

I'm saying Alex tried to rebuild it (it had suffered substantial destruction) and failed.

I'm saying it doesn't have a mayor now.

My reply remains that the place had been a swamp, I doubt if people were living in the ruined city itself, also I mention again my question about how the archaeologists allowed people building and living there, when they objected to Saddam's project? Both these considerations indicate that the people lived in the area, but not among the ruins of the ancient city.

Calling an occupying army "inhabitants" seems to me misuse of language.

lee_merrill

Ah--now I understand your point.

You would be omniscient, knowing that there is no God? You see, you are making a claim here that you cannot know...

Regards,
Lee

shirley knott

No, I am making the standard claim that without evidence or proof, there is no reason to accept the existence of prophecy.
This is the default position.
Attempts to use so-called prophecy to prove, or provide evidence for, some entity or other, fails due to the fact that such attempts are question-begging.
Omniscience is not required to show that you, and all theists, are wrong. The failure of your arguments coupled with your total lack of evidence suffices quite nicely.

So I repeat, there are no prophecies.
It should be easy to show I'm wrong, right lee?
All you have to do is show there is a god [whatever the heck that might be], and that it communicates to persons facts about future events.
But you can't even provide a definition of 'god', nor a warrant to seek such a thing.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

lee_merrill

I believe the conclusion should be, if you are right, that we don't know if there are any divine predictions, because we can't prove the existence of a divine being. I'm not sure I can totally prove my own existence, I might mention here.

Right, so evidence for this would be trying to rebuild Babylon, and failing (Alexander), and failing (Saddam) and failing (Next?).

The more this fails, the more likely it is that there is someone there, intervening...

shirley knott

Well, that explains a lot right there.
You don't even understand the concept of 'proof', let alone that of 'evidence'.

How is any of this evidence for a deity?
You keep focusing on the prediction, while special pleading that it must be a prophecy. This is without warrant.
And I would suggest an infinitely better test would be attempting to keep the city of Tyre unconquered and populated continuously from pre-Roman-empire days to today. Oddly enough, we've succeeded.
No prophecy.
So much for biblical innerancy.
I, for one, would have thought bibliolatry to be a sin, but what do I know? I'm not suffering the god delusion...

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Confused

interpret the bible literally------------- no prophetic evidece, but if i pick the same lottery numbers for thousands of years i just might win once.....

Jack the Bodiless

And I'm saying you're wrong.

It was the biggest city in the world, before and after Alexander. While Alex was there, he commissioned various repairs - which were carried out.

He did not "fail".
So what? It had a mayor when it was supposed to be uninhabited. If it becomes inhabited again, it will have a mayor again.
And you are still wrong. Saddam's palace wasn't built in a "swamp", it was built on a low hill. The people were indeed living in the city itself: that's why Saddam had to move them. The archaeologists were in no position to compel them to leave: until recent times, it has been quite normal for people to live in what are now regarded as archaeological sites.
Babylon was supposed to be "uninhabited", and the completeness of this is made clear: not even a passing Arab shepherd would ever pitch a tent there. Yet the U.S. Army has done much more than pitch a tent there. Hence your desperate attempts to dismiss Arab houses (yes, the people of the region are largely Arabs) and U.S. army barracks as "not Arab tents", ignoring the author's plain intent (again).