Prophesy or self delusion?

But surely common sense prevails.While the "wars and rumours of them" appears vague - is it that way purposefully? We must look deeper into the text. Jesus was talking about the end times in response to a question about the end, if memory serve accurate (probably doesn't). ANyway, if he gave an accurate list of certain wars, example;" when Hitler comes, and world war 2 " - wouldn't the disciples be a lil confused?But rather - vagueness is even required, when making an attempt to identify the end times, because so many things will happen! After your posts I can see now why you value rules...yet I still say you are not the qualified rulemakers, unless you are ascertaining validity in regards to yourself - in that you want it to pass your rules, to satisfy you..but still, what about confirmation bias? Dan, I feel I did pass your tests by providing extra-biblical sources etc..and trying my best to meet your demands.Okay - I have a thoroughly aching neck and will respond to the other replies to me later, by Schraff etc.. sheesh.

Well, hello Mike. In logic, this is valid. However, it is not sound, not to mention the existencial fallacy that is involved.I think you need to study further more into logic before making such attempt do logic.This message has been edited by Lam, 10-08-2004 10:40 AM

Cool, and as Amlodhi says, accidents happen.But now, look what happens. We can very easily argue that the first premise is wrong... not all redheads are aliens. For instance, I can point to my ex-girlfriend... a redhead who was born of human parents.You'll notice I'm not simply saying "you want to reach the conclusion that your grandmother is an alien, and you are making up your premises accordingly." I am arguing against the premise itself.We're still waiting for you to point out the flaws in the premises for prophecy analysis.This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 10-08-2004 10:39 AM

---

"If I had to write ten jokes about potholders, I don't think I could do it. But I could write ten jokes about Catholicism in the next twenty minutes. I guess I'm drawn to religion because I can be provocative without harming something people really care about, like their cars."
-George Meyer, Simpsons writer

Does it matter?Whatever Christ's reasons may have been, the prophecy is still vague and useless.I can have really good reasons for responding to someone's arguments on this forum with only two words: "nuh-uh". Maybe I'm pressed for time. Maybe I feel it's the most succinct means of refuting them. But my argument would still suck if that's all I chose to say.Similarly, Christ can have all the reasons he wants for sticking to "there will be wars and rumors of wars". But as a prophecy, it still sucks. This would be valid, if:1) You would point out the logical flaws in the rules themselves. If the bias is so blatant, this should be incredibly easy to do.2) You would offer your own, better set of rules.Thus far, you have done neither. Sweet Christmas, Mike. I've asked you a very specific question about Isaiah several times now, and you refuse to even address it.GIVEN THAT GOD'S EXISTENCE IS IN QUESTION, AND GOD'S EXISTENCE IS REQUIRED FOR THE FULFILLMENT OF ISAIAH, HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY SAY THAT ISAIAH IS FULFILLED?

---

"If I had to write ten jokes about potholders, I don't think I could do it. But I could write ten jokes about Catholicism in the next twenty minutes. I guess I'm drawn to religion because I can be provocative without harming something people really care about, like their cars."
-George Meyer, Simpsons writer

Lam, you do realize that in your thread, that was just a joke about your logic, indicated by the smiley, right?Nevertheless, Mike's head occasionally leaks, and you found the word I was looking for, sound. My only point was wha you just said;" In logic, this is valid. However, it is not sound ".You see - you and Crash are actually agreeing with me, without realizing it.I am arguing ABOUT logic concerning the prophecies, when looked at from the rules premise.

If you want to go through that route, then I'll go that route with you. If we want to make Christ's war statements as prophecies, then what about what I'm going to say now. Within the next 2 thousand years, there will be a big war where many people will die. Life will never be the same afterwards.If you want to include vagueness as a valid part of a prophecy, then surely I just made a prophecy that is bound to come true. You honestly think that there won't be a big war in the next 2 thousand years?What we are trying to tell you is that a prophecy that is vague is as meaningless as if the prophecy was never made in the first place. By the way, it rained a lot this morning. I remember somebody predicting that it would rain within the next week a few days ago. What do you know! We have a prophet present.

Dan r u deliberatley trying to drown this poor lil baba in over-postage? I haven't even responded to Shraff's numerous replies to me yet.Nevertheless, here is a link which infact proves God's existence. here

Well, it's all very well saying that - and if was you making the rules I might even believe you believe what you are saying, but I really think u r not infact seeing what I am meaning but what I am saying when I am saying it you are seeing yet not.So, the rules are made AFTER the bible was made. Just like creationism is made AFTER the bible was. Hah!

But fragments of scripture from the Gospel have been found within the eyewitness period. However, this is unlikely because of all the extra-biblical sources that name Christ. The acts of pilate etc.. Also, the fact that you admitt to someone sitting down and making it accurate, means that you can infact see that they are accurate. Now - they had no reason to make it correlate in order for Jews to buy into it - as they were preaching throughout the world. Gentiles didn't care about the Jewish religion, even the Romans confirm this, cos that bloke in that Jesus film even said so.

Only so long as you deliberately avoid direct questions. The outright shittiness of your debating tactics is getting progressively higher and higher as this topic goes on. Rrhain, Hambre, Crash, and others smacked the holy living crap out of your attempt at proving God's existence in that thread. In fact, you don't even have responses posted to the entire last page of their posts. And now you're trying to promote it as evidence?Your arguments are no longer just crap. They are officially meta-crap.So... given your inability to last out an argument in which you attempted to prove the existence of God, and that God's existence is required for the fulfillment of Isaiah, how can you possibly say that Isaiah is fulfilled?

---

"If I had to write ten jokes about potholders, I don't think I could do it. But I could write ten jokes about Catholicism in the next twenty minutes. I guess I'm drawn to religion because I can be provocative without harming something people really care about, like their cars."
-George Meyer, Simpsons writer

You don't have to respond to my posts if you don't want to. Actually, I was going to post a post asking people to respond to you less.This often happens to creationists on this board simply because they are a minority group here. Everytime a creationist post something, he often gets an average of 10 responses per day.Anyway, I'm going to stop and let others talk to you for now.

Infact - my implication was not refuted, because I shown my reasoning and no one actually answered my questions.So - I needn't even reply if no one even comes close to refuting me, or answering my reasonable questions.So - how they smacked the [insert obscenity] out of me - I'll never know. I even marked out to Mr Hambre what he had to do in order to make me wrong, he only said "the bridge doesn't exist" - and you think that was a refutation???? Other stuff was more side-banter which didn't remove logic. Because;
1. I have proved God's existence by reasoning alone
2. I met your criteria in ascertaining a valid prophecy.

Thanks Lam, I still read your message and have taken it in, but ofcoure, I have to try and figure out the main theme and try and keep my intention true, by only replying to the persons who annoy me most. .PS. I think I answered some of your queries if you read back, atleast - similar stuff anyway.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-08-2004 12:23 PM

For the benefit of those readers who are reluctant to follow Mike's link for fear of ending up in a Lewis Carroll universe full of talking cards and Cheshire cats, his proof for the existence of God is as follows: That's not what the argument boiled down to, that's what it actually was.regards,
Esteban Hambre

Oh. Well, I'm the King of England, and my bowel movements are made of solid gold.I said it. That makes it so. Because your only arguments were the supposed fine-tuning of the universe, and your own personal lack of knowledge about why anything exists.The fine-tuning argument was shot down, and your only response to the shots was to say "nobody's refuting me!" over and over again. All that leaves is lack of knowledge, and lack of knowledge proves nothing.Actually, your tactics on that subject are similar to on this one. Several people took time out to patiently explain the flaws in your reasoning. You ignored what they said, and skipped their posts as you saw fit. In the end, you walked away without even addressing their final points. And yet here you are down the road, repeating your original argument as though nothing ever happened.

---

"If I had to write ten jokes about potholders, I don't think I could do it. But I could write ten jokes about Catholicism in the next twenty minutes. I guess I'm drawn to religion because I can be provocative without harming something people really care about, like their cars."
-George Meyer, Simpsons writer