Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 02-17-2008, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Decypher

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrisengland

Hello I,m not really intersted in discussing this at the moment I just thought that since (mainly) Johnny skeptic and sugarhitman keep saying you can't prove the prophecie was made after the event or you can't prove it was made before the event they(and others) could have a debate about who has the burden of proof.
Its genaraly been said that Christians have the burden but some philosophers have tried to switch it to the atheist.
Chris

If Christians are saying that they have an argument from prophecy, to the truth of their religion, then I would say that the burden of proof is on them to show that the prophecy is real. That means showing that the prophecy was given before the event, and that it was fulfilled.

They have to show also, within reason, that statement was meant to be prophecy. For example, if I say that I am going to win the lotto and I win, it was just a wild guess. And every time I buy a lotto ticket, I make the same prediction, mine has never come true, but there are others who have , I guess, surpassed Jesus, their prediction was realised only once.

Johnny Skeptic · 02-17-2008, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Christians don't have an argument from prophecy so much as an argument from a person, namely Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

On the contrary, if Pat Robertson predicted when and where some natural disasters would occur, and they occurred, it is reasonable to assume that some people would become Christians as a result. Historically, many people have accepted all kinds of outlandish religions based upon much less convincing evidence than that. In addition, Nostradamus and Edgar Cayce attracted many followers based upon much less convincing evidence than that.

No reasonable motives regarding why the God of the Bible always makes disputable prophecies, thereby needlessly encouraging dissent instead of discouraging dissent = no God of the Bible.

Micah 5:2 says "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." If Micah had predicted that the messiah would become ruler of a heavenly kingdom, and that he would heal people, and that he would be crucified and rise from the dead, and that Pontius Pilate would become governor of Palestine, and that Herod would become the Jewish king of Judaea, are you going to tell us that not one single extra Jew would have accepted Jesus? "Well, er, uh, I refuse to answer that question because I do not want to embarrass myself."

chrisengland · 02-17-2008, 01:15 PM

As I said I did start this thread to discuss who has the burden of proof.
Do theists have to show that God exists or do atheists have to show he doesn't?
But of course the answer to that would affect Bible prophecie.

John Kesler · 02-17-2008, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrisengland

Its genaraly been said that Christians have the burden but some philosophers have tried to switch it to the atheist.

Here is a previous thread about the burden of proof. My post in the thread is reproduced below:

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kesler

In general two basic principles, both of them socially constructed, serve as a good starting point for discussion:

1) He who asserts must prove (basis of Greek logic).
2) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The latter is often credited to Carl Sagan, but there are bases for using it as a principle in Aristotle & David Hume. What is regarded as an ordinary claim is given presumptive weight (Aristotle's discussion of "endoxon"), and what flies in the face of an ordinary belief is presumed unlikely, yet neither presumption for nor against a claim based on conventional belief can ever count as more than provisional (i.e. open to future refutation or disproof). The conventional wisdom before Copernicus was that the earth was stationary. The extraordinary Copernican claim therefore required a great deal of compelling evidence to supplant the millenia-old belief in the earth's stability, and rightly so. This approach might seem to commit the logical fallacy of appeal to belief, but that would only be the case if the presumption were taken as definitive--not open to reasonable challenge. The minute reasonable challenge is offered or advanced, the proponents on endoxa must offer evidence (burden of proof shifts).

ughaibu · 02-17-2008, 01:24 PM

It's been snowing, here, almost all the time, for the last three weeks. Obviously god exists, human beings are nowhere near stupid enough to voluntarily live in a place like this. And you know what I say to a god who thought this was the ideal creation?

chrisengland · 02-17-2008, 01:30 PM

I think Plantiga said that people are rational to believe in God without good arguments or evidence because so many people beleive in God.
I think he was saying something like people believe the world is the way it is ie we are not living in the matrix or something without good arguments or evidence so because so many people believe in God we can believe that without good arguments or evidence.
Something like that.
I think Richard Swinburne also went about not proving that God exists but proving it was likely he exists.
Chris

arnoldo · 02-17-2008, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timetospend

For example, for the destruction of Tyre, I would contend that it is a reference primarily to the island fortress (Ez 27:32). Ergo, since the island no longer exists, it has been destroyed. A critic can obviously argue the point. Probably neither side can garner the required burden of proof to claim that they have entirely proved the point.
Thanks,

IMHO what could possibly prove the Tyre prophecy false is some verifiction that the people of the time, perhaps from 5 BC to 1 AD understood the prophecy to be false. No one can go back in time and read minds but IMHO the jewish people who were in exile in babylon certainly did not think that zekey's prophecy was false even after Nebby laid siege to Tyre for 13 years. If indeed the general consensus was that the prophecy failed there should be a least some documentation by a greek or jewish historian that Zekey's prophecy failed. In any event I agree that prophecy is meant to strengthen the faith of believers not as a way to convince unbelievers that God is real. Yeshua gave that job to his church

Johnny Skeptic · 02-17-2008, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

IMHO what could possibly prove the Tyre prophecy false is some verifiction that the people of the time, perhaps from 5 BC to 1 AD understood the prophecy to be false.

Better yet, if Pat Robertson accurately predicted when and where some natural diasters would occur, there would be little need for anyone to debate Bible prophecy.

arnoldo · 02-17-2008, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

IMHO what could possibly prove the Tyre prophecy false is some verifiction that the people of the time, perhaps from 5 BC to 1 AD understood the prophecy to be false.

Better yet, if Pat Robertson accurately predicted when and where some natural diasters would occur, there would be little need for anyone to debate Bible prophecy.

Watch the 700 club tomorrow. :angel:

Minimalist · 02-17-2008, 06:04 PM

Quote:

If Pat Robertson predicted when and where some natural disasters would occur,

Pat has a pretty shitty track record, though. Much like his god.

http://wyattroberts.blogspot.com/200...rophecies.html

Quote:

About this time last year, Pat Robertson said that God "told him" that in 2007, the United States would suffer from "mass killings" -- not necessarily a nuclear attack, but something on the same scale.

Guess what? It didn't happen. Well, okay, expect for that nuclear attack on the FOX series 24 (of which I and my wife are huge fans).

"In May, Robertson said God told him that storms and possibly a tsunami were to crash into America's coastline in 2006. Even though the U.S. was not hit with a tsunami, Robertson on Tuesday cited last spring's heavy rains and flooding in New England as partly fulfilling the prediction."

Hmmm.... Could Pat be Arnoldo? Has anyone ever seen them in the same room?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-17-2008, 01:15 PM	#13
chrisengland Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Bristol' England Posts: 2,678	As I said I did start this thread to discuss who has the burden of proof. Do theists have to show that God exists or do atheists have to show he doesn't? But of course the answer to that would affect Bible prophecie.

02-17-2008, 01:24 PM	#15
ughaibu Banned Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Japan Posts: 8,492	It's been snowing, here, almost all the time, for the last three weeks. Obviously god exists, human beings are nowhere near stupid enough to voluntarily live in a place like this. And you know what I say to a god who thought this was the ideal creation?

02-17-2008, 01:30 PM	#16
chrisengland Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Bristol' England Posts: 2,678	I think Plantiga said that people are rational to believe in God without good arguments or evidence because so many people beleive in God. I think he was saying something like people believe the world is the way it is ie we are not living in the matrix or something without good arguments or evidence so because so many people believe in God we can believe that without good arguments or evidence. Something like that. I think Richard Swinburne also went about not proving that God exists but proving it was likely he exists. Chris

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.