Fallacy Of Using Prophecy As Evidence For God.

[Asimov]

"How many scientists would contiue to believe in a therory if 99 out of 100 experiments failed to produce results that supported it?"

 

 

Only the suckers if you're talking molecular biology.

 

 

On the other hand, I think Edison tried a couple of thousand materials before he got around to tungsten for a durable filament.

 

 

Way to back up your assertion...

[Ssel]

Yeah, but as with Nostradamus I would argue that most of the prophecy in the bible is also just as vauge, I can't see that there have been any prophecies fulfilled that couldn't just be explained by random chance. The main difference I see between most fundies who try to use inductive logic to argue that prophecy proves God, and scientists who use inductive logic is one of statistics.

On this type of concern I totally agree. I have explained in a different thread of this type of deception.

 

But also realize that in this argument, you are matching lay-Christians against scientists, not lay-scientists. As I have pointed out many times, there is a world of far more intelligent Christians who do not fit this type of scenario. But these are people who seldom debate in public simply because they are involved with highly emotional people and such debates would end up as mere political dueling.

 

Also the West is mostly protestant engulfed. The protestant is mostly the non-intellectual literalist.

If you can present a "logical" argument for how the future can be predetermined without taking away free will, then by all means present it, otherwise you must admit that not all of your beliefs are based on logic.

It is not valid to say that just because a person can not effectively present an argument that there is no argument to present.

 

But if you understand that one sentence that I just said and can agree to it, then also realize how easy it is to be absolutely certain of something and present what you thought was a logical certainty, yet the statement you made about having to admit error, was logically incorrect. Sometimes being absolutely correct requires very careful self examination before any conclusion is stated.

 

But as to the subject of Free-will vs. Destiny, this is a subject which requires serious and earnest concentration. It is not a subject conducive to political debate.

 

This subject requires the careful ability to see the same subject from 2 perspectives. I forgot what you call them, but it is like those pictures where a stair case appears to be going in one direction but after blinking your eyes and looking again, the staircase might appear to be heading a different direction. It is truly only one picture, so which is right? Surely only one can be right. A staircase must either lead up and to the right or left and downward but can never do both, so which is it?

 

I will be willing to show the real logic of this (or try) if and only if we can do it in a very calm and earnest manner. This would have to be a discussion, not a debate and certainly not an emotional presumptuous argument. It would only be for those who truly want to understand the total truth of this topic.

[Asimov]

It is not valid to say that just because a person can not effectively present an argument that there is no argument to present.

 

But if you understand that one sentence that I just said and can agree to it, then also realize how easy it is to be absolutely certain of something and present what you thought was a logical certainty, yet the statement you made about having to admit error, was logically incorrect. Sometimes being absolutely correct requires very careful self examination before any conclusion is stated.

 

But as to the subject of Free-will vs. Destiny, this is a subject which requires serious and earnest concentration. It is not a subject conducive to political debate.

 

This subject requires the careful ability to see the same subject from 2 perspectives. I forgot what you call them, but it is like those pictures where a stair case appears to be going in one direction but after blinking your eyes and looking again, the staircase might appear to be heading a different direction. It is truly only one picture, so which is right? Surely only one can be right. A staircase must either lead up and to the right or left and downward but can never do both, so which is it?

 

I will be willing to show the real logic of this (or try) if and only if we can do it in a very calm and earnest manner. This would have to be a discussion, not a debate and certainly not an emotional presumptuous argument. It would only be for those who truly want to understand the total truth of this topic.

 

 

Ssel, if you're going to divert the topic again, start your own thread.

[Ssel]

Since a prophecy, by definition - AS IT APPLIES TO CHRISTIANITY - requires that God exists, it is not a proof of God's existence, and a logical fallacy.

 

 

What is NOT being said is:

 

"Because we believe in God and we believe that this man is a prophet of that God, then his PREDICTIONS will be important."

 

This is what YOU are saying, which is entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand.[/b]

I see what you are trying to say (unlike when this started). But now I can say that I not only disagree but I understand why as well.

 

To clear it up, please pick any example you wish from the Bible as a empirical example of your concern.

[Asimov]

I see what you are trying to say (unlike when this started). But now I can say that I not only disagree but I understand why as well.

 

To clear it up, please pick any example you wish from the Bible as a empirical example of your concern.

 

I don't understand what you're talking about.

[Ssel]

A veridical prophecy might be God's doing or it might be Satan using reverse psychology. There is no way to empirically determine the prophecy's source,

This is why it is merely evidence and not proof. As you said, "it MIGHT be God's doing.." Like all evidence, this merely adds to a possibility, not the construct of a proof. You have supported exactly what I was saying (thus far).

By the by, you can remind me to be civil as soon as I start being uncivil. kthx.

I wasn't reminding YOU, but referencing the trend of uncivillity that Asimov had started and seems to be continuing. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

It is as Asimov said:

 

If P, then Q.

Q, therefore P.

 

is a logical fallacy. What is the barrier to understanding here?

I know WHAT he said, I asked for its relevance. As I see it, the logical fallacy involved in the set theory discribed here has nothing at all to do with the original argument of how the word "prophecy" presumes the existence of God and is therefore invalid.

 

Ssel, if you're going to divert the topic again, start your own thread.

I did not divert anything. I replied and stated that this new topic would not be suited here.

 

READ.. THINK.. RESPOND

 

In that order.

 

To clear it up, please pick any example you wish from the Bible as a empirical example of your concern.

 

I don't understand what you're talking about.

Since you are talking about the word "prophecy" as it is used by the Christian, then obviously it is in reference to Biblical quotes.

 

I am asking that you find any example that demonstrated your point so that we are not talking about "strawman" issues but exact empirical examples.

[Asimov]

Ssel, if you're going to divert the topic again, start your own thread.

I did not divert anything. I replied and stated that this new topic would not be suited here.

 

READ.. THINK.. RESPOND

 

In that order.

 

 

You did not. Regardless, you do it anyways, like you've been doing the entire discussion in this thread.

 

I know WHAT he said, I asked for its relevance. As I see it, the logical fallacy involved in the set theory discribed here has nothing at all to do with the original argument of how the word "prophecy" presumes the existence of God and is therefore invalid.

 

And I showed you it's relevance.

 

Since you are talking about the word "prophecy" as it is used by the Christian, then obviously it is in reference to Biblical quotes.

 

I am asking that you find any example that demonstrated your point so that we are not talking about "strawman" issues but exact empirical examples.

 

 

It would be any prophecy, since we are talking about prophecy in general.

 

But let's take Micah 5:2

 

2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,

though you are small among the clans [a] of Judah,

out of you will come for me

one who will be ruler over Israel,

whose origins are from of old,

from ancient times. [c] "

 

Which is a prophecy regarding Jesus coming out of Bethlehem. I don't know why this is necessary, since it's entirely irrelevant to what I'm saying. A straw-man argument is a misrepresentation of the argument that someone uses. This is not what I'm doing, I'm directly taking what is being said and refuting it.

 

It's an argument about prophecy in general, and how it proves that God exists, Ssel, and I'm refuting that....specific prophecies are argued on a different level, because you must refute the subject of the prophecy (the prediction itself).

 

 

 

 

I wasn't reminding YOU, but referencing the trend of uncivillity that Asimov had started and seems to be continuing. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

 

My uncivility is justified because of your dishonesty and misrepresentation of the topic at hand.

[Ssel]

2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,

though you are small among the clans [a] of Judah,

out of you will come for me

one who will be ruler over Israel,

whose origins are from of old,

from ancient times. [c] "

 

Which is a prophecy regarding Jesus coming out of Bethlehem. I don't know why this is necessary, since it's entirely irrelevant to what I'm saying.

Now, using this example, how does this relate to the proposed fallacy that you originally pointed out?

 

It would appear to me that this is an example of a prophecy being made. But that is all I see so far. How does this one example relate to any logical fallacy?

[Fweethawt]

I wasn't reminding YOU, but referencing the trend of uncivillity that Asimov had started and seems to be continuing. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

My uncivility is justified because of your dishonesty and misrepresentation of the topic at hand.

Isn't that word supposed to be, incivility?

 

I mean, I dont' have the entire Oxford English Dictionary memorized like some people around here, but I'm pretty sure the word is supposed to be incivility.

[Ssel]

So...my opponent mentioned that fulfilled prophecy was one of the biggest reasons for conversion. I think it's a crock of shit. I'll point this out in the logical proof.

 

To say that prophecy shows that God exists is affirming the consequent.

Relate the example to any logical proof of fallacy.

[Asimov]

Now, using this example, how does this relate to the proposed fallacy that you originally pointed out?

 

It would appear to me that this is an example of a prophecy being made. But that is all I see so far. How does this one example relate to any logical fallacy?

 

Which is exactly where you are missing the point. I told you specific prophecies themselves deal with predictions. When Prophecy is used as a PROOF for God's existence, it is a fallacy of affirming the consequent for the reasons I've already mentioned.

[Ssel]

Isn't that word supposed to be, incivility?

Probably, I hesitated when I typed it. My memory isn't what it used to be.

 

When Prophecy is used as a PROOF for God's existence, it is a fallacy of affirming the consequent for the reasons I've already mentioned.[/b]

Since I believe that your reasoning is in error, I asked that you apply that reasoning to this example, or any other so that I can either more clearly see your point, or point out your error.

 

I had already and immediately agreed that prophecy does NOT constitute a proof in itself. But nor does it constitute a logical fallacy (as far as I can see).

[Asimov]

Isn't that word supposed to be, incivility?

Probably, I hesitated when I typed it. My memory isn't what it used to be.

 

When Prophecy is used as a PROOF for God's existence, it is a fallacy of affirming the consequent for the reasons I've already mentioned.[/b]

Since I believe that your reasoning is in error, I asked that you apply that reasoning to this example, or any other so that I can either more clearly see your point, or point out your error.

 

I had already and immediately agreed that prophecy does NOT constitute a proof in itself. But nor does it constitute a logical fallacy (as far as I can see).

 

 

Ok...prophecy that Jesus will be born in bethlehem.

 

"Hey, look at this prophecy Asimov, Jesus fulfilled that among 300 other specific prophecies, this is clearly indicates that God exists."

 

"Uh, no, because prophecy, by definition, presupposes that a God exists. You are using a fallacious argument."

[Ssel]

Ok...prophecy that Jesus will be born in bethlehem.

 

"Hey, look at this prophecy Asimov, Jesus fulfilled that among 300 other specific prophecies, this is clearly indicates that God exists."

 

"Uh, no, because prophecy, by definition, presupposes that a God exists. You are using a fallacious argument."

Okay, if that is your reasoning, then consider this...

 

"Hey, look at this prophecy Asimov, Jesus fulfilled that among 300 other specific prophecies, this is clearly indicates that God exists."

This is the typical fallacy of omission where the speaker attempts to use one single accurate prediction to claim that all predictions are accurate. He leaves out the others which do not support his claim as well as often using very vague instances which must be presumed to fit so as to make the prediction appear accurate.

 

Although I had already agreed that such tactics do not constitute proof, Kuroikaze properly explained this type of erroneous rationale.

 

"Uh, no, because prophecy, by definition, presupposes that a God exists. You are using a fallacious argument."

The fallacy that the speaker was using had nothing to do with the presupposition of God existing. The error that he made was an error of omission.

 

The "extreme example" that you presented displays that just because A is a subset of B, it can not be concluded that a member of B is also a member of A.

 

You presented a valid point of logic, but this extreme example was NOT the error that the speaker had made.

 

--------------------------

 

“Affirming the consequent” is the action of taking an event, then looking back into history for anything that might seem as a prediction to the event, then proclaiming that the event is related to the prediction.

 

In our example, Jesus was the consequent. The prediction of a son being born was the affirmation that Jesus was that son.

 

The real argument against this is simply that the prediction was not specific enough to be positively referring to Jesus. Real affirmation was never there.

 

When applying this to the subject of God and prophecies, the consequent is any event which the speaker wishes to proclaim as a God consequence, then he looks into the Bible for any prophecy that might appear to be a prediction of the event.

 

When he finds an appropriate prophecy, he then “affirms” that the event is from God due to the presence of a prediction/prophecy.

 

But then he usually continues and makes the omission error by saying, “See, God must be real, else this prophecy could not have been foretold.”

 

-----------------------

 

What your opponent was actually talking about, by what you presented, was why people convert. What he actually said was “This fallacy of omission is the greatest scam we have going for our side.” He might very well be right.

 

What you did was what is often called “baffle with bullshit”. You presented a distraction by proposing that your wordy logical fallacy example was related to his argument.

 

Then you used the catchy phrase, “affirming the consequent” so as to give the impression that you represented a more respectable point of view.

 

In reality you didn’t actually refute anything he said, but merely gave the impression that he is making a logical fallacy. This leaves the audience with the task of having to untwist what you said merely to find out that you actually said nothing relevant to his argument.

 

This is a ploy used in political debating so as to gain public appeal. But in a seriously logical environment, you would have been kicked out, if not banned for insulting the audience.

 

This is the ONLY reason that I said that it was YOU that was being the trickster, not him.

[Samurai Tailor]

This is why it is merely evidence and not proof. As you said, "it MIGHT be God's doing.." Like all evidence, this merely adds to a possibility, not the construct of a proof. You have supported exactly what I was saying (thus far).

That is a fair point. I had not noticed until now that the thread title had "evidence" in it.

I know WHAT he said, I asked for its relevance. As I see it, the logical fallacy involved in the set theory discribed here has nothing at all to do with the original argument of how the word "prophecy" presumes the existence of God and is therefore invalid.

Well, it certainly applies in cases where the argument has the form, "Prophecy, therefore God."

[Guest Guest]

Although I had already agreed that such tactics do not constitute proof, Kuroikaze properly explained this type of erroneous rationale.

 

LOL...I find it amusing that when someone writes something that you happened to have determined in your view as correct that you make sure and point it out as "correct", as if what you have determined as "correct" is the "correct" way.

[Ssel]

LOL...I find it amusing that when someone writes something that you happened to have determined in your view as correct that you make sure and point it out as "correct", as if what you have determined as "correct" is the "correct" way.

Everyone expresses what is their own view or rationale of what is correct or incorrect. What else can they do other than quote someone else.

 

Putting IMHO before someones claim of something being correct doesn't change anything other than the readers temptation to rush into speculation of the arrogance of the post.

 

If I put IMHO before everything I said, many would be happier with it. But making people happy with words and appealing to their sensitivities is merely food for deception. By stating exactly what I mean and not attempting to romance anyone with soft words, I am saying "wake up to the actual statements and stop speculating so much based on how much you like or dislike the writer. Speculation of intentions and presumptions of purpose only leads to being conned later by sweet talking con artists."

 

If everyone has to sweet talk you into actually listening to the statements, then what does that say about you?

 

So yeah, when I say "that is correct", I am saying that from my view "that is correct" what else could I mean?

[Asimov]

This is why it is merely evidence and not proof. As you said, "it MIGHT be God's doing.." Like all evidence, this merely adds to a possibility, not the construct of a proof. You have supported exactly what I was saying (thus far).

That is a fair point. I had not noticed until now that the thread title had "evidence" in it.

I know WHAT he said, I asked for its relevance. As I see it, the logical fallacy involved in the set theory discribed here has nothing at all to do with the original argument of how the word "prophecy" presumes the existence of God and is therefore invalid.

Well, it certainly applies in cases where the argument has the form, "Prophecy, therefore God."

 

 

While I admit the title was misleading I don't see how, after saying otherwise in my OP and afterwards in every subsequent post I made you could possibly feel confused. It's just a title.

 

So anyways, yea.

[Reality Amplifier]

Define the term "prophecy".

 

BTW -

 

I prophesize the sun will rise on January 7th, 2006

I prophesize there will be several earthquakes somewhere in the world in 2006.

I prophesize there will be violence and deaths in the middle east in 2006.

I prophesize there will be more discussion on this topic.

Lo! All that I foretold has come to pass!

 

I prophesize the sun will rise on January 7th, 2006

- Fulfilled.

 

I prophesize there will be several earthquakes somewhere in the world in 2006.

-Strong Earthquake Rattles Greece- Fulfilled

-Recent Earthquake Activity in the USA- Fulfilled

-Worldwide Earthquake Activity in the last 8 to 30 days- Fulfilled

 

I prophesize there will be violence and deaths in the middle east in 2006.

-Seven Die in Iraq suicide bomb blast - Fulfilled

-Palestinian terrorist target hit in Gaza - Fulfilled

-11 U.S. troops killed in Thursday attacks - Fulfilled

(I apologize for the poor taste in using these as examples)

 

I prophesize there will be more discussion on this topic

- Fulfilled!

 

Now, does the fulfillment of these predictions qualify them as prophecies?

[crazy-tiger]

Define the term "prophecy".

 

BTW -

 

I prophesize the sun will rise on January 7th, 2006

I prophesize there will be several earthquakes somewhere in the world in 2006.

I prophesize there will be violence and deaths in the middle east in 2006.

I prophesize there will be more discussion on this topic.

Lo! All that I foretold has come to pass!

 

I prophesize the sun will rise on January 7th, 2006

- Fulfilled.

 

I prophesize there will be several earthquakes somewhere in the world in 2006.

-Strong Earthquake Rattles Greece- Fulfilled

-Recent Earthquake Activity in the USA- Fulfilled

-Worldwide Earthquake Activity in the last 8 to 30 days- Fulfilled

 

I prophesize there will be violence and deaths in the middle east in 2006.

-Seven Die in Iraq suicide bomb blast - Fulfilled

-Palestinian terrorist target hit in Gaza - Fulfilled

-11 U.S. troops killed in Thursday attacks - Fulfilled

(I apologize for the poor taste in using these as examples)

 

I prophesize there will be more discussion on this topic

- Fulfilled!

 

Now, does the fulfillment of these predictions qualify them as prophecies?

Depends... was it divine insperation, or just an educated guess?

[dibby]

Depends... was it divine insperation, or just an educated guess?

If I could look forward in time and bring that knowledge back to now , no divine inspiration would be necessary. I could stun people with revelations .I could always jazz it up a bit of course....grow a big beard, put on some robes etc. Or maybe I could do what the Bible people did.....write about it after the events had occured.