Argument from prophecy/prayer.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-08-2017, 10:26 PM
Argument from prophecy/prayer.
So I'm arguing on YouTube... <waits for snickering to slow a bit>... and I've come across something I think is interesting. It's new to me, though I'm sure somebody else noticed before now.
The argument from answered prayer goes, basically, "When I pray for X, God says either 'Yes', 'No', or 'Wait', so I always get an answer."
We then note this is unfalsifiable and could just as easily be used to prove that a magic milk jug answers all prayers, too, rendering the argument invalid and monumentally stupid.
With prophecy, what we're asking is "will this event happen", or, another way of looking at it, the believer wants X event to happen as a demonstration of their god.
1) Any prophecy that supposedly has yet to happen means god says we must "wait".
2) Any prophecy that supposedly happens means god said "yes".
3) Any prophecy that supposedly doesn't happens means god said "no".
This would put "fulfilled prophecy" on the same level as "answered prayer", entirely unfalsifiable and, as such, not even a valid argument to start with (so we can dispense with worrying about whether any particular prophecy came true or didn't, it doesn't matter). All we need is some way to get god to suggest that if he gives out a prophecy, he may or may not fulfill it.
And this is where the YouTube argument comes in. I was arguing failed prophecies in the bible, and the other side was proposing apologetics for them, when said other side decided to post the following:
Quote:Jer. 18:7-10 "If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it."
And there it is. God saying that his prophecies are "yes" or "no" events, and any that supposedly haven't happened yet are "wait" events. Does this seem valid, or am I blowing this out of proportion? Huh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2017, 10:55 PM
RE: Argument from prophecy/prayer.
Quote: If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.

So their god is not omniscient, and does not know the future. Facepalm

Prophecy is not 'prediction". Omen reading and divination was forbidden.
Obviously they're amateurs with no Biblical education.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid257278
The ancient role of a prophet in Hebrew culture was to interpret the words or will of their god to the people OF THEIR OWN DAY. NOT to predict the future. (That's Hollywood's idea of the role of a prophet).
So you often hear fundies talking about "prophesy", and how various prophesies were a 'foretelling", or prediction of the future, and indeed they count them up as "proof" that Jebus or whatever HAS to be true, as the "prophecy" came true.
In fact Leviticus forbade fortune telling and divination, so we know it was an abomination to even think in these terms for many/most centuries in Hebrew culture. However, with the rise of Apocalypticism, around the turn of the millennium, this changed somewhat, and is evidenced in many Christian writings, including the gospels, as they adopted the notions absent in ancient Israel, but coming into popular view with the Essenes. In terms of Hebrew culture, and the "telling of or prediction of" the future, was unknown, and forbidden, and not at ALL a view of the major prophets themselves. However in the the new view, certain "hidden meanings" or "pesherim" began to be looked for, in the practice of Midrash. The name for this is called "pesher", (or seeking a "hidden meaning"), which was not even known to the original speaker/writer, but only "revealed" later
to certain believers. Originally, the (plural) "pesherim" were only fully revealed to the Son of Righteousness, (the leader of the Essenes), and the idea was first found and fully understood after scholars read the Dead Sea scrolls, and was a sub category of "Midrash", (or study of the texts).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesher
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midrash
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsou...15650.html
Thus we see that "prophesy" as fortune telling as began to be practiced in Judaism around the First Century, (and picked up by Christians and the gospel writers), really was a very late invention and never a classical part of Hebrew scripture, or understanding, either interpretation, or intention, and certainly was not the function of the ancient office of "prophet", in Hebrew culture, who was to be a "mouthpiece" to the people of their own day, and not Madame Zelda with her crystal ball.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/r...html#proof

Deuteronomy 18:10
Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft,

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
23-08-2017, 11:06 PM
RE: Argument from prophecy/prayer.
Quote:With prophecy, what we're asking is "will this event happen", or, another way of looking at it, the believer wants X event to happen as a demonstration of their god.


Herodotus recounts that during the Persian invasion of Greece the oracle of Delphi told the Spartans that in order for the city not to be overrun by the Persians that one of their kinds would have to die. Leonidas died at Thermopylae and Sparta was not destroyed. Somewhat later, the oracle told the Athenians that they should stand behind their wooden wall. Themistocles interpreted this to mean that they should rely on their navy and crushed the Persians at Salamis. The Delphic Oracle was sacred to Apollo. Ask your xtian pals if they have sacrificed a goat to Apollo since clearly he knew his shit.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Minimalist's post
24-08-2017, 12:05 AM
RE: Argument from prophecy/prayer.
At work.

Hasn't there been some archeology about the possible discovery of the Oracle's temple?

Cheers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2017, 12:16 AM
RE: Argument from prophecy/prayer.
(24-08-2017 12:05 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

Hasn't there been some archeology about the possible discovery of the Oracle's temple?

Cheers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/19/scienc...sions.html

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
24-08-2017, 04:33 AM
RE: Argument from prophecy/prayer.
It's nonsense. The ancient Greeks and Romans had their "seers" back then they didn't call them prophets, but "oracles". And like the Ancient Egyptians they all prayed to their gods in a futile effort of hoping they were real. Today's monotheism of Abraham will be tomorrow's mythology.

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2017, 04:46 AM
RE: Argument from prophecy/prayer.
I find "prophecy" to be one of those things that people believe, because eventually something somewhere will happen and it'll be similar to what was said, merely because A) people are stupid and connect dot's they are looking for and B) that Earth will be around [hopefully] for so long, that the possibility's of most things happening are endless.

For example, right now, if I say: "and there will be a man, who doth stride out of the fire, holding a duck in one hand, and pink feather duster in the other....he shall be the one to lead us into a new future" - the probablity of those EXACT things happening are very slim, but there is also the chance that it WILL happen also, and who knows when, but eventually it will....does that make me a prophet? No, it just means I said some random shite, and people can take on board for whatever they like.

The Helpful Atheist - An Information Blog
Last updated: 08/11/2017 - Want to contribute, drop me a PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2017, 04:50 AM
RE: Argument from prophecy/prayer.
(24-08-2017 04:46 AM)OakTree500 Wrote:  I find "prophecy" to be one of those things that people believe, because eventually something somewhere will happen and it'll be similar to what was said, merely because A) people are stupid and connect dot's they are looking for and B) that Earth will be around [hopefully] for so long, that the possibility's of most things happening are endless.

For example, right now, if I say: "and there will be a man, who doth stride out of the fire, holding a duck in one hand, and pink feather duster in the other....he shall be the one to lead us into a new future" - the probablity of those EXACT things happening are very slim, but there is also the chance that it WILL happen also, and who knows when, but eventually it will....does that make me a prophet? No, it just means I said some random shite, and people can take on board for whatever they like.

If you want to see something that is not there you will. It is no different than seeing shapes in the clouds. It relies on gullibility and ambiguity.

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Brian37's post
24-08-2017, 05:14 AM
RE: Argument from prophecy/prayer.
(23-08-2017 10:26 PM)OddGamer Wrote:  So I'm arguing on YouTube... <waits for snickering to slow a bit>... and I've come across something I think is interesting. It's new to me, though I'm sure somebody else noticed before now.
The argument from answered prayer goes, basically, "When I pray for X, God says either 'Yes', 'No', or 'Wait', so I always get an answer."
We then note this is unfalsifiable and could just as easily be used to prove that a magic milk jug answers all prayers, too, rendering the argument invalid and monumentally stupid.
With prophecy, what we're asking is "will this event happen", or, another way of looking at it, the believer wants X event to happen as a demonstration of their god.
1) Any prophecy that supposedly has yet to happen means god says we must "wait".
2) Any prophecy that supposedly happens means god said "yes".
3) Any prophecy that supposedly doesn't happens means god said "no".
This would put "fulfilled prophecy" on the same level as "answered prayer", entirely unfalsifiable and, as such, not even a valid argument to start with (so we can dispense with worrying about whether any particular prophecy came true or didn't, it doesn't matter). All we need is some way to get god to suggest that if he gives out a prophecy, he may or may not fulfill it.
And this is where the YouTube argument comes in. I was arguing failed prophecies in the bible, and the other side was proposing apologetics for them, when said other side decided to post the following:
Quote:Jer. 18:7-10 "If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it."
And there it is. God saying that his prophecies are "yes" or "no" events, and any that supposedly haven't happened yet are "wait" events. Does this seem valid, or am I blowing this out of proportion? Huh

Yeah, it's an unfalsifiable construct. I'm tempted to say that the ancient Hebrews invented this type of post-hoc rationalization, but I'm sure the Sumerians, Egyptians and pre-historic tribes did this, but they sure do have patent rights to this fallacy! Big Grin

When the Hebrews got their asses handed to them during the Babylonian exile, they had to come up with an excuse for why their supposedly all-powerful god let their nation be destroyed. So they came up with the post-hoc explanation that their god was punishing them for not obeying him and he used the Babylonians as a tool to do his bidding. Facepalm

The first post-hoc religious mythology was born, and they have been post-hoc'ing ever since.

It's also turned out to be a rather lucrative fallacy to indulge in, you can use post-hoc analysis to make your bible fit science (creationism), you can use your post-hoc analysis to prove that your god answers prayer (prosperity gospel sects) and you can use post-hoc analysis to show that world events are all fulfillment of prophecy (apocalypticism, etc).

All it takes for "prophets" to profit is:

1. Have a post-hoc explanation for events based on your interpretation of the bible.

2. Have a gullible audience that believes your post-hoc interpretations.

3. $$$

It doesn't matter if you are wrong about your prophetic predictions as long as your gullible followers refuse to see past their fallacious thinking process, it's a perpetual slot machine that keeps awarding payouts to an entire cottage industry of this predatory con-artistry.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheInquisition's post
24-08-2017, 05:24 AM
RE: Argument from prophecy/prayer.
(24-08-2017 05:14 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(23-08-2017 10:26 PM)OddGamer Wrote:  So I'm arguing on YouTube... <waits for snickering to slow a bit>... and I've come across something I think is interesting. It's new to me, though I'm sure somebody else noticed before now.
The argument from answered prayer goes, basically, "When I pray for X, God says either 'Yes', 'No', or 'Wait', so I always get an answer."
We then note this is unfalsifiable and could just as easily be used to prove that a magic milk jug answers all prayers, too, rendering the argument invalid and monumentally stupid.
With prophecy, what we're asking is "will this event happen", or, another way of looking at it, the believer wants X event to happen as a demonstration of their god.
1) Any prophecy that supposedly has yet to happen means god says we must "wait".
2) Any prophecy that supposedly happens means god said "yes".
3) Any prophecy that supposedly doesn't happens means god said "no".
This would put "fulfilled prophecy" on the same level as "answered prayer", entirely unfalsifiable and, as such, not even a valid argument to start with (so we can dispense with worrying about whether any particular prophecy came true or didn't, it doesn't matter). All we need is some way to get god to suggest that if he gives out a prophecy, he may or may not fulfill it.
And this is where the YouTube argument comes in. I was arguing failed prophecies in the bible, and the other side was proposing apologetics for them, when said other side decided to post the following:
And there it is. God saying that his prophecies are "yes" or "no" events, and any that supposedly haven't happened yet are "wait" events. Does this seem valid, or am I blowing this out of proportion? Huh

Yeah, it's an unfalsifiable construct. I'm tempted to say that the ancient Hebrews invented this type of post-hoc rationalization, but I'm sure the Sumerians, Egyptians and pre-historic tribes did this, but they sure do have patent rights to this fallacy! Big Grin

When the Hebrews got their asses handed to them during the Babylonian exile, they had to come up with an excuse for why their supposedly all-powerful god let their nation be destroyed. So they came up with the post-hoc explanation that their god was punishing them for not obeying him and he used the Babylonians as a tool to do his bidding. Facepalm

The first post-hoc religious mythology was born, and they have been post-hoc'ing ever since.

It's also turned out to be a rather lucrative fallacy to indulge in, you can use post-hoc analysis to make your bible fit science (creationism), you can use your post-hoc analysis to prove that your god answers prayer (prosperity gospel sects) and you can use post-hoc analysis to show that world events are all fulfillment of prophecy (apocalypticism, etc).

All it takes for "prophets" to profit is:

1. Have a post-hoc explanation for events based on your interpretation of the bible.

2. Have a gullible audience that believes your post-hoc interpretations.

3. $$$

It doesn't matter if you are wrong about your prophetic predictions as long as your gullible followers refuse to see past their fallacious thinking process, it's a perpetual slot machine that keeps awarding payouts to an entire cottage industry of this predatory con-artistry.

P.T. Barnum, "There's a sucker born every minute."

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: