Einstein Method, Book of Daniel
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-08-2013, 05:39 AM
Einstein Method, Book of Daniel
http://www.harvardhouse.com/hypothesis_1...phetic.htm

Can someone who isn't terrible at math please clarify this weirdness for me?

I Will have My revenge on AlternateHistory.com, in this life or the next Evil_monster

~WrappedInShadows (AKA Me)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2013, 09:07 AM
RE: Einstein Method, Book of Daniel
Mathematics aside, the argument is essentially:
1. If prophecy is invalid, no statement about the future will hold true
2. The book of Daniel includes six statements that the author of the argument considers to hold true
3. Therefore god (or more precisely, therefore any explanation other than the statements being true prophesy is reasonably excluded)

Now we know that (1) is false. We can make statements about the future that are reasonably likely to hold true without the aid of prophesy. We can make very general statements that can be interpreted as true no matter the actual outcome. We can make statements that utilise real world knowledge in order to ensure their chance of being true is maximised.

(2) also has deep problems. Which statements does the author hold true? Why should we consider them unlikely in the absence of actual prophesy? Moreover, this is an old book we are reading and we don't know exactly who wrote it and when. Is it possible that the author placed words in the mouth of one of the characters in their book that seemed prophetic but actually only described events that had happened prior to the authorship of the book. It's hard to be specific without seeing what these supposed 6 "certainly true, certainly unpredictable without prophesy statements" actually are.

(3) The propositions intended to support this conclusion are highly questionable, but so is the leap of logic even if we were to assume those propositions as true. Therefore God? Therefore prophesy? What do we mean by God? What do we mean by prophesy? It is reasonable to expect further evidence that either God or prophesy exist, and the mechanisms by which they operate.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Hafnof's post
10-08-2013, 09:11 AM
RE: Einstein Method, Book of Daniel
I'm not a mathematician, but his claim of 0 unfulfilled prophecies is unproven and based on his/her own beliefs. Fancy equations do not validate bad data. He/she claims they are true and therefore they are not false. Circular reasoning.

You can lead a theist to reason, but, you cannot make him think.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2013, 09:11 AM (This post was last modified: 10-08-2013 11:10 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Einstein Method, Book of Daniel
(10-08-2013 05:39 AM)TheLastEnemy Wrote:  http://www.harvardhouse.com/hypothesis_1...phetic.htm

Can someone who isn't terrible at math please clarify this weirdness for me?

Complete bullshit, for many reasons, not just the math.

(This "engineered" chi square test is laughable. It's not even "statistics." It's the equivalent to my saying, "I can predict when the Yankees win" and then picking only 6 games in my sample, when they did win, and saying that proves my assertion. The sampling method is 110 % invalid, and so bad it's actually humorous.) If I presented this in a Stats class, I would get it wrong, and be laughed out the door.

The interpretation(s) (of the so-called "prophesies") are necessarily subjective.
1. The (so called) "prophesies" are not stated, so we have no clue what this nonsense is even talking about, and I suspect they are highly subjective "postdictive" interpretations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postdiction
2. Picking only six, which engineers the outcome is (obviously) not how statistics works.
They would need to present ALL the (supposed) predictions, (or sample them, by an established sampling method), and then prove the single (subjective) interpreted event was actually the predicted event, and state what the criteria were, a priori, for a predicted event to actually BE, a predicted event. They also would have to show how a certain event was NOT an event which might have just happened anyway, and why it was highly unlikely, so predicting it would be improbable.
3. The flawed scholarship. The inclusion of various literary elements in apocalyptic literature was highly subjective. It's a complex subject, and too long for this.
http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view...1-0026.xml
4. The notion that the role of a prophet was to "predict the future" is erroneous. The ancient role of a prophet in Hebrew society was to "speak truth to power" and advise the people of their own day, not to tell the future. In fact "divination", soothsaying, and sorcery were forbidden in Leviticus. Prophesy as sooth-saying is one of most common fallacies around today, and probably perpetuated more by Hollywood, (and uneducated fundamentalists) than anything else. Biblical scholars do NOT sit around talking about this sort of thing, and in fact Freshman Bible 101 students are taught about this common error. Only very late in Hebrew literature, (as apocalypticism became popular towards towards the turn of the millennium), did this sort of literature become popular. Modern interpretation of apocalyptic literature as "proof" of something is called "Presentism" --- modern interpretations of ancient literature which had no intention of doing what modern people interpret them to have done.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid257278
(see post # 86)

So, the engineered stats are completely bogus, and all the underlying assumptions about what prophesy even is, are false, and are based on ignorance of Biblical and apocalyptic literature.

The premise that a(ny) particular amount of predictive ability proves "supernatural" intervention is not established. Is 3 out of 6 good enough, 4 of 6, 5 of 6 ?
The worst flaw is that the conclusion is assumed. Even if a really random sample of events were found to predict a future event, the conclusion that the determining factor in the prediction *had* to be "supernatural" is not established, and in fact, since it's the least probable would be the last factor looked at.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Bucky Ball's post
10-08-2013, 01:29 PM (This post was last modified: 10-08-2013 10:50 PM by I Am.)
RE: Einstein Method, Book of Daniel
Even if the rest were valid (it isn't), where the hell did the author get "Daniel's Prophecies come from outside time-space." as the alternate hypothesis?

And nowhere do I see any reference to an escalating probability of matching by chance... in an infinite series of events, virtually all possible predictions will eventually appear to match actual events.

A simple comparison... let's say I predict that you will flip a coin and get Heads 20 times in a row. If the universe of flips is 20, I'll almost certainly be wrong. In a universe of 1,000,000 flips, it's almost certain that somewhere in there will be a string of 20 heads in a row... and 20 tails, and likely more than one such string of each.

Prophesy is open to interpretation, unlike coin flips. That means we can fill in gaps with assumptions. For instance, I predict that so-and-so's daughter will die at a young age. This person has no children yet. I could interpret any future death of female offspring before the mean life expectancy, including *any* miscarriage prior to sexual distinction, as a fulfillment of my "prophesy." And even if that doesn't work out, I can always reinterpret "daughter" as "female descendant" and have the entire future lineage of so-and-so to eventually be right.

I AM he who is called... cat furniture.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2013, 02:31 PM
RE: Einstein Method, Book of Daniel
(10-08-2013 09:11 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(10-08-2013 05:39 AM)TheLastEnemy Wrote:  http://www.harvardhouse.com/hypothesis_1...phetic.htm

Can someone who isn't terrible at math please clarify this weirdness for me?

Complete bullshit, for many reasons, not just the math.

(This "engineered" chi square test is laughable. It's not even "statistics." It's the equivalent to my saying, "I can predict when the Yankees win" and then picking only 6 games in my sample, when they did win, and saying that proves my assertion. The sampling method is 110 % invalid, and so bad it's actually humorous.) If I presented this in a Stats class, I would get it wrong, and be laughed out the door.

The interpretation(s) (of the so-called "prophesies") are necessarily subjective.
1. The (so called) "prophesies" are not stated, so we have no clue what this nonsense is even talking about, and I suspect they are highly subjective "postdictive" interpretations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postdiction
2. Picking only six, which engineers the outcome is (obviously) not how statistics works.
They would need to present ALL the (supposed) predictions, (or sample them, by an established sampling method), and then prove the single (subjective) interpreted event was actually the predicted event, and state what the criteria were, a priori, for a predicted event to actually BE, a predicted event. They also would have to show how a certain event was NOT an event which might have just happened anyway, and why it was highly unlikely, so predicting it would be improbable.
3. The flawed scholarship. The inclusion of various literary elements in apocalyptic literature was highly subjective. It's a complex subject, and too long for this.
http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view...1-0026.xml
4. The notion that the role of a prophet was to "predict the future" is erroneous. The ancient role of a prophet in Hebrew society was to "speak truth to power" and advise the people of their own day, not to tell the future. In fact "divination", soothsaying, and sorcery were forbidden in Leviticus. Prophesy as sooth-saying is one of most common fallacies around today, and probably perpetuated more by Hollywood, (and uneducated fundamentalists) than anything else. Biblical scholars do NOT sit around talking about this sort of thing, and in fact Freshman Bible 101 students are taught about this common error. Only very late in Hebrew literature, (as apocalypticism became popular towards towards the turn of the millennium), did this sort of literature become popular. Modern interpretation of apocalyptic literature as "proof" of something is called "Presentism" --- modern interpretations of ancient literature which had no intention of doing what modern people interpret them to have done.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid257278
(see post # 86)

So, the engineered stats are completely bogus, and all the underlying assumptions about what prophesy even is, are false, and are based on ignorance of Biblical and apocalyptic literature.

The premise that a(ny) particular amount of predictive ability proves "supernatural" intervention is not established. Is 3 out of 6 good enough, 4 of 6, 5 of 6 ?
The worst flaw is that the conclusion is assumed. Even if a really random sample of events were found to predict a future event, the conclusion that the determining factor in the prediction *had* to be "supernatural" is not established, and in fact, since it's the least probable would be the last factor looked at.

Thanks!

Is this why Daniel is placed in the Writings instead of the Prophets?, Because he did a whole lot of predicting.

I Will have My revenge on AlternateHistory.com, in this life or the next Evil_monster

~WrappedInShadows (AKA Me)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2013, 06:17 PM (This post was last modified: 13-08-2013 08:26 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Einstein Method, Book of Daniel
(11-08-2013 02:31 PM)TheLastEnemy Wrote:  
(10-08-2013 09:11 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Complete bullshit, for many reasons, not just the math.

(This "engineered" chi square test is laughable. It's not even "statistics." It's the equivalent to my saying, "I can predict when the Yankees win" and then picking only 6 games in my sample, when they did win, and saying that proves my assertion. The sampling method is 110 % invalid, and so bad it's actually humorous.) If I presented this in a Stats class, I would get it wrong, and be laughed out the door.

The interpretation(s) (of the so-called "prophesies") are necessarily subjective.
1. The (so called) "prophesies" are not stated, so we have no clue what this nonsense is even talking about, and I suspect they are highly subjective "postdictive" interpretations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postdiction
2. Picking only six, which engineers the outcome is (obviously) not how statistics works.
They would need to present ALL the (supposed) predictions, (or sample them, by an established sampling method), and then prove the single (subjective) interpreted event was actually the predicted event, and state what the criteria were, a priori, for a predicted event to actually BE, a predicted event. They also would have to show how a certain event was NOT an event which might have just happened anyway, and why it was highly unlikely, so predicting it would be improbable.
3. The flawed scholarship. The inclusion of various literary elements in apocalyptic literature was highly subjective. It's a complex subject, and too long for this.
http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view...1-0026.xml
4. The notion that the role of a prophet was to "predict the future" is erroneous. The ancient role of a prophet in Hebrew society was to "speak truth to power" and advise the people of their own day, not to tell the future. In fact "divination", soothsaying, and sorcery were forbidden in Leviticus. Prophesy as sooth-saying is one of most common fallacies around today, and probably perpetuated more by Hollywood, (and uneducated fundamentalists) than anything else. Biblical scholars do NOT sit around talking about this sort of thing, and in fact Freshman Bible 101 students are taught about this common error. Only very late in Hebrew literature, (as apocalypticism became popular towards towards the turn of the millennium), did this sort of literature become popular. Modern interpretation of apocalyptic literature as "proof" of something is called "Presentism" --- modern interpretations of ancient literature which had no intention of doing what modern people interpret them to have done.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid257278
(see post # 86)

So, the engineered stats are completely bogus, and all the underlying assumptions about what prophesy even is, are false, and are based on ignorance of Biblical and apocalyptic literature.

The premise that a(ny) particular amount of predictive ability proves "supernatural" intervention is not established. Is 3 out of 6 good enough, 4 of 6, 5 of 6 ?
The worst flaw is that the conclusion is assumed. Even if a really random sample of events were found to predict a future event, the conclusion that the determining factor in the prediction *had* to be "supernatural" is not established, and in fact, since it's the least probable would be the last factor looked at.

Thanks!

Is this why Daniel is placed in the Writings instead of the Prophets?, Because he did a whole lot of predicting.

There were hundreds, if not thousands of texts of "revelations". They were a dime a dozen. Dr. Pagels talks about them in general here, although Daniel would have been earlier, but not that much earlier.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWjtXasqPFM

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2013, 01:25 PM
RE: Einstein Method, Book of Daniel
It would depend on evidence for dating the authorship of Daniel. If we date Daniel late, he is a liar "prophesying" things that had already passed... and therefore, the Jewish people who held up Daniel as scripture were frauds or party to a fraud.

If we date Daniel conservatively, he predicts the battle plans and ascendancy of Antiochus Epiphanes IV, Alexander the Great and the four empires that followed in the wake of his death, etc.

It's a lot more than six prophecies in Daniel. It's ALL based on dating. You cannot demonstrate a false prophecy in Daniel (that I'm aware of) so you HAVE to INSIST on a later date for his historical prophecies.

Thanks for your consideration.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2013, 01:30 PM (This post was last modified: 13-08-2013 08:28 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Einstein Method, Book of Daniel
(12-08-2013 01:25 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  It would depend on evidence for dating the authorship of Daniel. If we date Daniel late, he is a liar "prophesying" things that had already passed... and therefore, the Jewish people who held up Daniel as scripture were frauds or party to a fraud.

If we date Daniel conservatively, he predicts the battle plans and ascendancy of Antiochus Epiphanes IV, Alexander the Great and the four empires that followed in the wake of his death, etc.

It's a lot more than six prophecies in Daniel. It's ALL based on dating. You cannot demonstrate a false prophecy in Daniel (that I'm aware of) so you HAVE to INSIST on a later date for his historical prophecies.

Thanks for your consideration.

"Party to a fraud" is 2013 modern mentality. "Presentism", remember ?
They thought they were doing what they thought was right, at the time.
"Pious fraud" is another matter, and was the generally accepted way they did business. It was pervasive. The ends justified the means.
It was not considered "unethical" as it would be today. More "Presentism". You can't look at ancient / "other" cultures with your own culture's eyes. (Did you never see "The Ugly American"?
He predicted nothing of the sort. Unless he specifically named them, along with specific dates, among his countless others that did not happen, it's just post-dictive bias, and reinterpretation.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2013, 04:46 PM
RE: Einstein Method, Book of Daniel
(12-08-2013 01:25 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  It would depend on evidence for dating the authorship of Daniel. If we date Daniel late, he is a liar "prophesying" things that had already passed... and therefore, the Jewish people who held up Daniel as scripture were frauds or party to a fraud.

If we date Daniel conservatively, he predicts the battle plans and ascendancy of Antiochus Epiphanes IV, Alexander the Great and the four empires that followed in the wake of his death, etc.

It's a lot more than six prophecies in Daniel. It's ALL based on dating. You cannot demonstrate a false prophecy in Daniel (that I'm aware of) so you HAVE to INSIST on a later date for his historical prophecies.

Thanks for your consideration.

But then why did Daniel seemingly get details of Antiochus' later actions wrong?

I Will have My revenge on AlternateHistory.com, in this life or the next Evil_monster

~WrappedInShadows (AKA Me)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: