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

arnoldo

I think it's fair to say in general terms the skeptic has a "heads I win, tails you lose" philosophy. Note the following:
1. Accurate prophecies= Written After the Fact
2. Inaccurate prophecies = Prophecy Fails :rolling:
2a. This is ignoring that the "Failed Prophecy" is based on half-truths :wave:

Decypher

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.

ughaibu

If I tell you that I knew a horse would win the race, after the race, would you believe me? If I told you before the race, and I was correct, (consistently) would you believe me?
Does the Bible clearly prophesy anything that it doesn't itself confirm?

Johnny Skeptic

Actually, "after the fact" is not my favorite argument. My favorite arguments are as follows:

No God who wanted people to believe that he can predict the future would always make disputable prophecies when he could easily make indisputable prophecies.

If Pat Robertson accurately predicted when and where some natural disasters would occur, month, day, and year, he would easily be able to convince many non-Christians to become Christians. That is a reasonable assumption since 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.

chrisengland

Sorry people I was talking about who has the burdon of proof on a whole theist or atheist.
Arnaldo if it is Christians responsibility to show that God exists then you can't use prophecie if you can't prove it was written before the event.
It would be like saying I can prove I,m psychic by telling you I thought something would happen after the event.

arnoldo

Christians don't have an argument from prophecy so much as an argument from a person, namely Jesus Christ of Nazereth. The early christian believers also were witnesses that a real person existed despite what the gnostic stated then (Jesus was a spirit being not a man) and what the minimalist are claiming now (Yeshua, 12 disciples, Paul, early christianity is fiction). There is a scripture that states the "Word became flesh (tabernacled) and dwelt among us."

Timetospend

I do not think that prophecies were met to predict the future or convince the skeptic. Rather, I think that they are in the Bible to help Chrisitians know that God is in control and to offer future hope as in Jesus' own prophecy concerning his resurrection:
John 14:29
29 And now I have told you this before it occurs, so that when it does occur, you may believe
NRSV

If the Bible believer says that the unbeliever should be convinved by a given prophecy, the Bible believer has the burden of proof.

If the unbeliever says that a particular prophecy is disproved, then the burden of proof belongs to him.

Both burdens are difficult to prove which is why there tends to be wrangling by some.

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,

chrisengland

Yeah even the burden of proof appears to be debated in now days

Johnny Skeptic

I disagree. 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.