I could see he had been poisoned against fulfilled Biblical prophecies.
What you see is a rejection of the claim that biblical prophecy is evidence of a superhuman prescience by people who advocate for critical thinking and reject belief by faith. What you do that is so common among believers is to assume that if somebody isn't convinced by the evidence that they offer, that they just didn't look at it or give it a chance. Of course they did. The offered evidence did not support the conclusion the believer suggested it did according to his rules for evaluating evidence, which are obviously different than the standards the believer brings to the process.
I and others have discussed our criteria for prophecy to judge it meaningful. You haven't addressed that. Yesterday, you noted that the Tyre prophecy was accurate, and I explained that that wasn't enough. I then went on to prophecy darkness at night for yesterday, and lo and behold, it was an accurate prophecy. It even specified the date (yesterday) and time (late evening) that the prophecy would take place, which Tyre prophecy lacked. I'll bet that my prophecy doesn't impress you at all, and that would be a correct conclusion to arrive at, but can you say why? What does my prophecy lack that would make it evidence that I possess hidden knowledge not available to ordinary people had it contained that?
I did end up rebutting the argument against the Tyre prophecy of Ezek 26. The result was as expected, no even worse than expected.
You didn't rebut successfully. You convinced me of nothing. But your methods are different from mine. You say that you found the process painful. Why should that be? I find many discussions disappointing, but I don't have an emotional reaction. I don't get frustrated or have a bad experience like so many of the believers. You saw them practically begging for the discussion to stop, framing it as attack and calling it divisive. Not for the critical thinkers participating. But that is to be expected when the two cultures interact, and one doesn't really understand how the other processes information.
I was talking in a general sense but specifically about using Occam's Razor to say that Biblical Prophecy is not from God. I do find that amazing.
I explained that to you. Speaking of how we process information, if you make a statement like I did about Occam's Razor, where I explained the utility of the concept, but in reverse, explaining why you think I was wrong, I will address it with you and tell you why I disagree if I do. What we see so often in these threads are arguments not acknowledged much less rebutted, followed by the same claim previously rebutted. You've done that twice in the quotes in this thread, first by repeating that another poster had been poisoned after it was explained why that wasn't an accurate assessment (and failing to comment on the criteria for strong prophecy), and now with Occam's Razor.
Where's the evidence that you read my reply, much less understood it? There is none, and this guarantees that no progress can or will be made in this discussion. You're still where you were the first time you made those comments, and will never move until you engage in dialectic with me. That can't happen if you don't know how or what that is, or what rebuttal and falsification are and the critical role they play in argumentation.
I'm sure you would like to learn more about this and do a better job. Here's a key element: address EVERY claim or argument made to you either by indicating agreement or explaining not just that you think it's wrong, but exactly where, why, and what is correct instead. Your answer should show clearly why you think mine is wrong. If it doesn't even attempt to do that, it cannot lead to a meaningful resolution of differences in opinion. Try that now. Find the comments in this post that you think are incorrect and explain why you think so in the manner I described - falsification. Think courtroom trial. The prosecutor presents a plausible theory of a crime and the defendants guilt. What kinds of replies from the defense attorney would help to exonerate the defendant. Here are your choices:
- Say nothing.
- Say that's not how we see it (simple dissent).
- Explain that the defendant is a good husband and father (dissent with a comment that doesn't make the prosecutor wrong).
- Give an alibi that shows that the prosecutor's argument is wrong (rebuttal, falsification).
If you understand what I'm driving at in this example, then you know what I am asking for in our discussion and your replies - debate, dialectic.