Boro Nut

Well as a lawyer, perhaps you can understand the lack of any positive evidence that the prophecy was written before the events that didn't happen invalidates it as a prophecy. There is positive evidence of the absence of the evidence, to-wit, its total non-existence.

Similarly without a certified attested copy of the original prophecy, there is no evidence that it hasn't been altered. We certainly know other religious texts have been altered over time from direct physical evidence to the point where any reasonable person would expect it to be the norm. I’m quite prepared to be proven wrong on this. A copy of two identical versions of different denominational bibles would be a start.

This is especially pertinent given that the bible itself specifically admonishes scribes not to do what everyone knew they were always doing - ie correcting the grammar and stupidity of the uninformed peasant authors as they copied. Put yourself in the position of a scribe years after the supposed events, being asked to copy out religious texts stating that Tyre would be reduced to rubble by Nebuchadnezzar, and desolate for evermore. Wouldn’t you be tempted to update it a bit? No?

What if you worked for a large and profitable firm of scribes in the bustling business district of, let’s say for the sake of argument, the thriving city of Tyre? What if it was the annual Fuck You Nebuchadnezzar holiday, when the whole city painted pictures of Nebuchadnezzar on the cheeks of their arses to celebrate not being reduced to rubble evermore by Nebuchadnezzar? Might not your eraser accidentally slip across the odd blatent falsehood?

I think you'd find this plain logic easier to understand if it was a dodgy insurance claim. There again, as a lawyer I can see where you're coming from. You must have to accept unsigned undated wills of unknown provenance all the time, especially ones which conflict with established facts and beggar belief. If so can you tell me what you charge by the hour? I’ve already got the typewriter.

Boro Nut

Philadelphia Lawyer

If someone comes into court and seeks a declaratory judgment that a will (or other document) is invalid, the burden of proof is on that person to show that this is the case.

Amaleq13

No, I'm saying it is almost certain that they would consider his treatment of "their" arguments inadequate and feel compelled to correct him.

Untrue. For example, when a theist falsely characterizes science, it is not sufficient for me to simply state this. I have to back my claim up with evidence that they have incorrectly described the opposing position. In fact, this happens quite regularly in discussions of evolution with creationists.

IMO, the theists are technically correct given the negative nature of the OP.

Boro Nut

Which would amount to presenting to the court with the said unsigned undated unwitnessed will. QED. Case closed. No you can't claim costs.

Boro Nut

Johnny Skeptic

That is absolutely false. In my opening post, I said:

You obviously have not studied the posts in this thread very well. I have told bfniii several times that it is my current position that it is equally plausible that the events predated the prophecy, and that the events post-dated the prophecy, and that it is equally plausible that later revisions were not made, and that later additions were made.

Regardless of my topic question and my opening post, no predictions can qualify as being prophetic unless it can be reasonably proven that the predictions predate the events. In addition, as I have asked bfniii and Lee Merrill on a number of occasions, even if the prophecy predated the events, what about it indicates divine inspiration. Their replies were ridiculous. I told them that historically, kingdoms rising and falling has been the norm, not the exception. I also told them that due to Nebuchadnezzar’s proven penchant for conquest, his proximity to Tyre, and the riches of Tyre, it would have been surprising if he had not attacked Tyre.

What is your position on the validity of the Tyre prophecy?

Philadelphia Lawyer

The person bringing the case would have to prove to the court that the will is undated, unsigned and unwitnessed. He can't simply assert it's undated, etc. and leave at that. That is what is Johnny Skeptic is trying to do. In your analogy, he would be like the lawyer for the person bringing the suit announcing in his opening remarks that the will is undated, and then resting his case without presenting any evidence.

Philadelphia Lawyer

So? You're just restating your claim that the prophecy cannot be accurately dated. And adding another claim about editing. The burden of proof is still on you to prove these claims.

This would be a good argument to make if you were responding to a claim that the prophecy is valid. But you're not. You can't just start a thread, make claims in your original post, and then run away from those claims because you don't want to satisfy your burden of proof. You claimed the prophecy cannot be dated accurately; you must prove that this is the case. The burden is not on your critics to prove that the prophecy can be dated accurately.

All of this is irrelevant. You claimed the prophecy is invalid because it cannot be dated accurately. You must prove this to be so. You cannot now argue that bfnii and Lee Merrill must prove the basis for the "divine inspiration" of the prophecy. You restricted your supposedly "simple invalidation" of the prophecy to the question of dating. Anything else is off-topic.

This is also irrelevant.

Sauron

Which is irrelevant, because Johnny has reformulated his position several times. Had you read the text I provided (in green) you would have realized that.


I don't have to re-write anything. I merely have to pay attention to Johnny's position, which he admits that he re-worked. Clarifying or refining a position is permitted in a debate, last time I checked. And Johnny's been up front with the audience whenever he has done this, as opposed to others who have simply backpedaled without admitting having done so.

Since it appears that you didn't realize that (charitable), I'll stop here. Unless you're simply trying to ignore it (uncharitable), in which case Johnny can confirm what I said.

Edited to add: I see that Johnny has confirmed exactly what I posted about this:

You obviously have not studied the posts in this thread very well. I have told bfniii several times that it is my current position that it is equally plausible that the events predated the prophecy, and that the events post-dated the prophecy, and that it is equally plausible that later revisions were not made, and that later additions were made.

Philadelphia Lawyer

And, as I told Johnny, this is simply a restatement of his original claim (that the prophecy cannot be accurately dated) and the addition of another claim (that editing cannot be disproven). These are still claims that must be proven by Johnny. He must show why all of these contingincies are "equally plausible." He can't simply assert that they are and leave it at that.

Sauron

Actually this is more like a prosecutor trying to bring charges against someone on a specific crime that has A, B C as stated elements of the crime. All the defense has to do is point out that the prosecution skipped a step in the elements of the crime, and forgot to establish "B" anywhere in their arguments.

It's also similar to a prosecutor who brings charges against someone named "Killer Joe" for murder, but forgets to prove that the person charged is, in fact, Killer Joe. All the defense has to do is point out to the judge that the prosecution's case may be well-argued, but it doesn't matter since the prosecutor never established that the defendant is the same person as Killer Joe.

Prophecy is a prediction of future events. That requires that the composition of said prophecy precede the event in question. As far as I can see, Johnny's only claim here is that theists have not presented proof of prior composition with regards to this prophecy.