outhouse
Atheistically
Exactly. It sucks that pseudoscience ignores how much sheer luck factors into reality.
I predict people will live and die, holy moly I'm a prophet!!!!!!!!!! I'm now batting at a 100%
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is there any religious argument that actually stands when scrutinized with reason?
- Thread starter cambridge79
- Start date
Exactly. It sucks that pseudoscience ignores how much sheer luck factors into reality.
I predict people will live and die, holy moly I'm a prophet!!!!!!!!!! I'm now batting at a 100%
You've made the common mistake of conflating the rejection of a position with the positive affirmation of it's opposite. You do have an obligation to prove no deity exists if you claim that no deity exists.
What was the tallest mountain on earth before the discovery of Mt. Everest? Mt. Everest.
"Factually" it is necessary for you to account for all possible evidence when claiming that no possible purple flying unicorns exist. Again, you conflate the discounting of a claim with an opposite claim.
I've used this analogy before to help someone struggling in understanding:
I have no knowledge of relative skill among rugby teams and someone tells me that the NZ All Blacks' are the most skilled rugby team around. As he appears to be a big All Blacks' fan, I don't find this convincing and I reject his claim: I do not believe that the All Blacks' are the most skilled rugby team. I have not, however, claimed that the All Blacks' are not the best, that would be unsupported conjecture.
That last line is unfortunately where you are now.
Sure, but it is not applicable to all things.
Have you ever heard if Siener (Seer) van Rensburg ?
Stop putting words in my mouth and quote to me the post number where you claim I said so.
You cannot predict a prior established fact!
You got stumped with the first ball you faced!!!!
outhouse
Atheistically
No prophet has ever stated anything outside dead luck.
Prophets originally meant speaker for god, it never originally meant predictor of the future.
And your factually false. Many events claimed were such
outhouse
Atheistically
OK easy.
No deity exist. There is nothing to observe, nor has there ever been anything to observe. My statement is substantiated because there is nothing called a god to observed anywhere. No god exist scientifically because there is nothing to observe outside mythology.
What we can observe is that primitive people created thousands of these concepts in the past in mythology, and today you generally ONLY believe in certain descriptions of this concept based solely on where you are born. Most of the faithful are born into belief. They do not use reason and logic to obtain this faith.
But I digress, you seem move goal post, as I am countering your previous claims of possible evidence, in context.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
Well, I wouldn't believe in something without evidence
The fact that you say that there is no evidence is irrelevant. Yes .. You can't physically see God, physically touch God, or physically hear God..
..that would be because it's all about the spiritual, much like the contents of one's mind .. that is not a physical concept either.
If you are using the word 'evidence' in a physical context, there are books, but they are written by men of course .. it's a personal thing whether we believe in a superior authority to mankind or not!
outhouse
Atheistically
But spiritual can be another name for your conscious mind, imagination and just thinking.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
Precisely!
Dear me changing the subject are you -
My comment concerned what YOU "Predicted" which wasn't and never will be a prediction
You are factually false and that is a fact beyond all doubt.
Predictions are of future events not existing well established facts.
pre·dic·tion
prəˈdikSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: prediction; plural noun: predictions
- a thing predicted; a forecast.
"a prediction that the Greeks would destroy the Persian empire"
synonyms: forecast, prophecy, prognosis, prognostication, augury;More
projection, conjecture, guess
"seven months later, his prediction came true"- .....
Last edited:
McBell
Unbound
Nice personal spin you put on it...
Even the source you provided does not add "existing established facts"....
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
Most prophecies we read about cannot be traced to before the time they are referencing. Indeed, most can be traced to later texts, after the event has already occurred. It's like when Christians don't write about Jesus' prophecies about the Temple until after the Temple is destroyed. All of the "and there will be wars" type prophecies is a bit like saying summers will be hot and winters will be cold. They are "duh" prophecies, astounding to only people who are ignorant of basic facts of life. In order to PROVE a prophecy, you will need mention of it PRIOR to the referenced events. Otherwise, you just have someone's opinion.
outhouse
Atheistically
Has nothing to do with a prophets original definition.
We are living now and not in some historical woo woo. Life and death is an age old fact and to say people will live and die is thus merely acknowledging these facts.
Your batting average remains zero.
outhouse
Atheistically
Which is the same as another proclaimed prophet that has ever existed.
Shad
Veteran Member
There. You want an absolute. Science barely produces deductive claims.
Its not even that he was 100% incorrect or not. All of his claims failed as his prediction used standards he made up is his mind. If he had used standards of astronomy he would have never based claims on ancient calendars. If he used any standard of medicine he would never made claims about DNA changing as there is zero evidence to support his. If he had studied physics he would have never made the claim that the magnetic field was going to reverse. In each case he made claims that no experts in any of the above fields supported as he used a cracks method of making crap up based on superstition
McBell
Unbound
Only because you added to the definition you sourced...