Are there any prophecies in the Bible?

[notachance]

It seems to me that the go-to "proof" that the Bible is divinely inspired are prophecies.

So I was hoping that somebody would give me an example of a prophecy that might prove the supernatural nature of the Bible.

I will write below a few criteria that I think any alleged prophecy must meet in order to qualify as "evidence of supernatural nature of the Bible"

1) The prophecy must have been demonstrably written down before the event it predicts.
A prophecy is a statement about the future, not about the past.

For example, if I wrote today, in 2011, "I hereby make the prophecy that in 2008, Barack Obama will be elected President of the United States", that is NOT a prophecy, because I'm "predicting" an event that actually already happened.

Similarly, if a 350 AD manuscript (for example the Codex Sinaiticus) talked about some battle that took place in 600BC, that wouldn't be a prediction, it would be a description of something that happened almost 1000 years earlier.

2) A prophecy must have demonstrably actually been made
An example of scenario that would NOT count as a valid prophecy would one where I write down today "10 years before he died, John Lennon told an anonymous author that he would die by being shot in the head". There is no way of verifying that John Lennon ever said that, so it's not a valid prophecy.

3) A predicted event must be reliably documented.
For example, if I said "I predict that tonight I will dream about eating ice cream" and then the next day I say "The prophecy came true! I did dream about ice cream", that would not be an accurate prophecy because it was not reliably documented. Nobody other than me knows if it's actually true that I dreamed about ice-cream.

4) A prophecy must be specific enough that it cannot be adaptable to multiple scenarios that are somewhat likely to happen eventually.
For example if I wrote "There will be a war between Christians and Muslims in the next 100 years", then I'm not making a supernatural prophecy, just an educated guess given the nature of our international relations. In order for it to even be considered as a prophecy, it would have to be something like "On March 2nd 2076, the United States will begin a campaign of drone attacks in Iran, starting with a 3:30 am raid on a military base 20 miles north of Tehran".

Another example of what would not be a prophecy would be something like "the twin towers that collapsed on 9-11 will eventually be rebuilt"

5) In order for a prophecy to be considered proof of the supernatural nature of the Bible, there has to be no other reasonable way to explaining it than by supernatural means.
If you cannot prove that purely natural explanations (chance? self-fulfilling prophecy, forgery) truly cannot account for the prophecy, then your belief in the supernatural cause of the prophecy is no more than a faith statement, and if you are using that do justify your faith, you're engaging in circular logic ("I believe in this baseless claim, because it's supported by another baseless claim").

6) An accurate prophecy cannot be considered evidence of the supernatural if it is surrounded by inaccurate prophecies.
For example if I wrote today the following statements:
"Obama will be elected in 2012"
"Pawlenty will be elected in 2012"
"Romney will be elected in 2012"
"Palin will be elected in 2012"
"Gingrich will be elected in 2012"

And one of them turned out to be correct, that would prove nothing!

7) A prophecy can only be considered evidence of the supernatural if it predicts something that is extremely unlikely.
For example this chart shows that over the last 117 years, in Seattle it has rained on August 2nd 13 times. That means that there is 11.1% chance that it will rain in Seattle on August 2nd of any given year. So if I wrote the prophecy that "On Aug 2nd 2154 it will rain in Seattle", that would be an accurate prediction, but nonetheless not evidence of supernatural powers, simply evidence of the statistical fact that I had a 11.1% chance to be right.

8) The prophecy cannot be an expression of something that many people want to see happen, because the people's will is what drives the prophecy to be fulfilled in that case, and not a supernatural power.
For example, if Martin Luther King had said "I predict that one day a black man will be US President", that would not be the kind of prediction that would prove the supernatural, because in saying that, MLK would just be verbalizing a wish that was to some degree shared by millions of blacks and whites alike. It was simple social pressure from these millions that eventually caused the prophecy to be "fulfilled". If Hillary Clinton said "One day a woman will be President" she will, by saying it, inspire people to try to make that happen. It's called a self-fulfilling prophecy.


It's almost 3am and I am a little tired. I may have to add additional bullet points later. It may also be that there is some redundancy, and that the list could be condensed while retaining it's purpose. But I think this is a good start.

Here are my two questions:

1) Do you agree that the requirements above are reasonable, if not explain why not

2) Can you think of any Bible prophecy that meets the requirements above?

(please don't link or quote 100 different prophecies, and don't then leave it to me to look them all up and debunk them all. Start by quoting the SINGLE MOST CONCLUSIVE example of a prophecy, and we can talk about that. Once we've debated it, we can move on to additional examples)

[Paradigm]

Please name me ONE nation in the history of the human race that when going through hard times did NOT state that it would return to its former glory and everything would end well.

The Pelasgian nation.

Name me ONE nation where that behavior doesn't happen.

The Pelasgian nation.

Heck, politicians in America are doing that right now! "The best days of America are ahead of us. We will get rid of this $14 trillion debt and we shall lead the 21st century just like we led in the 20th".

First of all, trying to encourage people to fix things through their own efforts is not the same as a God given prophecy about an event that is divinely guaranteed to happen in the far future.

Secondly, I think you just made that quote up. Please provide a link to a politician actually saying that.

So, this is how it works: EVERYBODY predicts/hopes that things will get better for them. For some people it works out, for others it doesn't.

Please demonstrate where the Pelasgians ever made such a claim.

For the Jews it worked out, for the native Americans it didn't.

Ok, if you want to talk about th l,e Native Americans, please give us a link to the Mayan prophecy that says the Mayan civilization will be reassembled and returned to its former glory.

Also, since EVERYBODY predicts this, please provide links for similar prophecies in Navajo folklore, Cherokee folklore, and Suquamish folklore.

Does that prove that Yahweh is real but Wakan Tanka is not?

First of all, a prophecy wouldn't prove the existence of Yahweh. It would only prove that someone knew what would happen before it did. If I had a time machine, I could go back and tell people that the Flying Spaghetti Monster told me that Mt. St. Helens would erupt on May 18 of 1980.

This wouldn't prove that the FSM is real and Yahweh is not, since my foreknowledge is equally explainable by the fact that I had a time machine.

Secondly, show my the Sioux legend in which Wakan Tanka tells his prophet that the Sioux people will be given back their ancestral homeland and return to even greater glory.

It's simple statistical inevitability. If enough civilizations in distress predict/hope that things will get better, eventually by sheer happenstance and perseverance, it will come true for one or two of them. So what.

Ok. I could buy that. As soon as you give me evidence that the Pelasgians, Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Babylonians, Mayans, Aztecs, Navajo, Cherokee, Sioux, Suquamish, and Kenyans all had prophecies about being returned to their ancestral homeland and to their former glory, I shall concede the point.

If enough people buy a lottery ticket, eventually somebody will win the lottery.

If nobody EVER states/writes down/hopes/predicts that things will get better when times are rough, and the only people in the history of the world who had ever made that prediction were the Jews, and it happened for them, then I'd be impressed. But that's not the case. Everybody wants things to get better. It would be a surprise if it DIDN'T get better for some of us.

Ok. Now all you have to do is provide the links. I don't expect you to provide them for every Civilization, but we need a large enough sample to be confident that 'return-to-ancestral-homeland prophecies' are in the majority. Give me prophecies from the Pelasgians, Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Babylonians, Mayans, Aztecs, Navajo, Cherokee, Sioux, Suquamish, and Kenyans and you win!

So hopefully that takes care of that. Now let me address your response to my criterion 8.

That will take care of that as soon as you back up your assertion that everyone has return-to-ancestral-homeland prophecies.

I wrote:

The prophecy cannot be an expression of something that many people want to see happen, because the people's will is what drives the prophecy to be fulfilled in that case, and not a supernatural power.

You responded:

I disagree with this condition. Even if everyone in the world wanted the Flying Spaghetti Monster to come and end world hunger by turning dirt into pasta, such an event would still be supernatural. The fact that many people want it does not disqualify it as being such

That is a false comparison. The FSM turning dirt into pasta could not be defined as ANYTHING other than a supernatural event. It is INESCAPABLY supernatural irrespective of all other considerations. There is no way to explain it other than through the supernatural.

To the contrary, it IS possible to explain how people formed a nation in 1948. Nothing inexplicable and magical happened. It's not like the Jews started flying out of concentration camps and throwing lightning bolts on Nazis from the sky.

Your criteria still fails. Lots of people in this world would love to see the nation of Israel wiped out by a giant volcano. If I predict that the nation of Israel will get wiped out by a giant volcano and then the Nation of Israel gets wiped out by a giant Volcano, the fact that lots o people wanted the nation of Israel to get wiped out by a giant volcano doesn't negate the validity of the prophecy. There is nothing innately inexplicable o magical about volcanoes.

It's the same as this:

If I wish really hard for $1 million to materialize magically in my living room and it happens, then something supernatural may have occurred.

If I wish really hard for $1 million, and I buy a lottery ticket and it's the winning one, then it's not supernatural, I just got lucky.

If someone says to you on the day you buy it, "The Flying Spaghetti Monsters tells me that the ticket you just bought is going to win." Then the fact that you wished for it to be true does not invalidate the fact that the FSM prophet correctly predicted it.

Let's see, let me destroy your argument in another couple of ways:

I wrote

In order for a prophecy to be considered proof of the supernatural nature of the Bible, there has to be no other reasonable way to explaining it than by supernatural means.

You replied:

If I accurately predict that some day the Mayan civilization will return to their former glory and have their ancient homeland restored to them, is there another realistic explanation?

Well, if the only prediction you ever made was aboutthe Mayans and it came true, it would be interesting. But if you predict that EVERY SINGLE ANCIENT CIVILIZATION will return to its former glory, and then one of them does, you haven't proven you have supernatural powers! You're just the guy who bought every lottery ticket in the country. One of them has gotta be the winning one.

As I said earlier, every single civilization in distress predicts/hopes for a return to its former glory. So the fact that everybody makes that prediction, and most of the time it doesn't come true but a few rare times it does, is not evidence of the supernatural, it is evidence of STATISTICAL INEVITABILITY.

As soon as you give me evidence that the Pelasgians, Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Babylonians, Mayans, Aztecs, Navajo, Cherokee, Sioux, Suquamish, and Kenyans all had prophecies about being returned to their ancestral homeland and to their former glory, I shall concede the point.

Last moment of destruction of your argument:
I wrote:

An accurate prophecy cannot be considered evidence of the supernatural if it is surrounded by inaccurate prophecies.

You replied:

In the example you give, the prophecy is surrounded by conflicting prophecies. Is there a prophecy in the Bible that says the Jews would never return to the promised land?

No, but the Bible predicts that Israel would vanquish all its enemies, and that the enemies would be INEXISTENT. Does Iran exist? Does Hezbollah exist? Does Hamas exist? Clearly the prophecy that Israel's enemies would not exist is a false prophecy.

Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean that the prophecy is false. Only time will tell.

So the prophecy about the creation of the nation of israel is surrounded by inaccurate prophecies. The "prophet" is just throwing everything at the book and seeing what sticks. That's like me saying "I predict I will die on a Monday, or a Tuesday, or a Wednesday or a Thrusday". Well, guess what, right there I have over a 50% chance of being right!

It isn't like that. Show where a Bible prophecy says "Israel will return to it's ancestral homeland OR it will reassemble in a new homeland far away from its ancestral homeland OR it will remain without a land of its own"

The prophecies don't say "this will happen OR this will happen."

[notachance]

It's simple statistical inevitability. If enough civilizations in distress predict/hope that things will get better, eventually by sheer happenstance and perseverance, it will come true for one or two of them. So what.

Ok. I could buy that. As soon as you give me evidence that the Pelasgians, Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Babylonians, Mayans, Aztecs, Navajo, Cherokee, Sioux, Suquamish, and Kenyans all had prophecies about being returned to their ancestral homeland and to their former glory, I shall concede the point.

Ah ah ah! I love it. Great way to shift the burden of proof.

Lets get this straight, buddy. You are making the positive claim that some words in the Bible are evidence of the author's ability to predict the future.

You have the burden of proof.

Now, let's say that I concede that I cannot demonstrate that all those civilizations hoped to go back home. Let's say that I couldn't find evidence of that. (I'll look into that, but let's assume for now that I fail)

The fact that we can't find examples of other civilizations' records does not DEMONSTRATE that therefore the Jews are the only ones who ever expressed hope of things ending well.

To say that "We can't find records of people hoping for things to go well in the end, therefore the only explanation for the existence of such records among the Jews is their ability to predict the future" is just as absurd as saying "I cannot figure out what the trick in this magic show is, therefore the only explanation is that the guy is performing real magic".

The Jew's words are a "fulfilled prophecy" rather than "statistical inevitability" only if the Jews are the only ones who ever uttered those kind of wishful words in history. If you want to make the positive claim that those words are a fulfilled prophecy then the burden is on YOU to demonstrate that the Jews are the only ones in history who ever expressed in writing the wish to go back home.

So, prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that the Pelasgians, Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Babylonians, Mayans, Aztecs, Navajo, Cherokee, Sioux, Suquamish, and Kenyans NEVER expressed desire to go home, and you will have fulfilled your burden of proof with regards to the Jewish authors' ability to predict the future.

If enough people buy a lottery ticket, eventually somebody will win the lottery.

If nobody EVER states/writes down/hopes/predicts that things will get better when times are rough, and the only people in the history of the world who had ever made that prediction were the Jews, and it happened for them, then I'd be impressed. But that's not the case. Everybody wants things to get better. It would be a surprise if it DIDN'T get better for some of us.

Ok. Now all you have to do is provide the links. I don't expect you to provide them for every Civilization, but we need a large enough sample to be confident that 'return-to-ancestral-homeland prophecies' are in the majority. Give me prophecies from the Pelasgians, Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Babylonians, Mayans, Aztecs, Navajo, Cherokee, Sioux, Suquamish, and Kenyans and you win!

Wrong. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that people that are banished from their home wish to go back home. It's perfectly reasonable that people who are suffering want to stop suffering.

If you wish to make the positive claim that nobody in the history of the planet has ever wished for things to get better when they were bad and that the Jews are absolutely unique in this notorious human tendency, and that therefore their words are a "prophecy" and not a statistical inevitability, then YOU must demonstrate that nobody else in the history of the human race has ever expressed desire to go back to their homeland.

The burden of proof is on you.

I wrote:

The prophecy cannot be an expression of something that many people want to see happen, because the people's will is what drives the prophecy to be fulfilled in that case, and not a supernatural power.

You responded:

I disagree with this condition. Even if everyone in the world wanted the Flying Spaghetti Monster to come and end world hunger by turning dirt into pasta, such an event would still be supernatural. The fact that many people want it does not disqualify it as being such

That is a false comparison. The FSM turning dirt into pasta could not be defined as ANYTHING other than a supernatural event. It is INESCAPABLY supernatural irrespective of all other considerations. There is no way to explain it other than through the supernatural.

To the contrary, it IS possible to explain how people formed a nation in 1948. Nothing inexplicable and magical happened. It's not like the Jews started flying out of concentration camps and throwing lightning bolts on Nazis from the sky.

Your criteria still fails. Lots of people in this world would love to see the nation of Israel wiped out by a giant volcano. If I predict that the nation of Israel will get wiped out by a giant volcano and then the Nation of Israel gets wiped out by a giant Volcano, the fact that lots o people wanted the nation of Israel to get wiped out by a giant volcano doesn't negate the validity of the prophecy. There is nothing innately inexplicable o magical about volcanoes.

Fail.

A volcano erupts IRRESPECTIVE of human desires. Therefore a volcano erupting because people willed it to, would be inexplicable.

But social change, such as the creation of a nation, DOES happen because of human desires. Therefore it's by no means inexplicable that if lots of people want something to happen WHICH THEY HAVE THE POWER TO MAKE HAPPEN, then that thing happens!

If lots of people wish for a volcano eruption and it happens, it's a mystery.

If lots of people want Obama to become President and it happens, it's not a mystery.

So the prophecy about the creation of the nation of israel is surrounded by inaccurate prophecies. The "prophet" is just throwing everything at the book and seeing what sticks. That's like me saying "I predict I will die on a Monday, or a Tuesday, or a Wednesday or a Thrusday". Well, guess what, right there I have over a 50% chance of being right!

It isn't like that. Show where a Bible prophecy says "Israel will return to it's ancestral homeland OR it will reassemble in a new homeland far away from its ancestral homeland OR it will remain without a land of its own"

The prophecies don't say "this will happen OR this will happen."

Correct. It doesn't say "this will happen OR this will happen." It says ""this will happen AND this will happen." And only some of the stuff happens, by statistical inevitability.

[notachance]

Praise Allah the Merciful! You are absolutely right, Christianity breeds hatred, confusion, chaos. That's because, as the Holy Prophet clearly says, Jesus is the Son of Satan. Thank you for providing this crushing indisputable proof that Christianity is Satanic.

I just have one question for you: Why do you hate God? He created you. He is your father. Why do you hate him?

Why do you worship Satan and His Son Jesus? Why?

Quran knowledge fail. Jesus, may peace be upon Him, is not considered the son of Satan in Islam. He is regarded as the messiah in Islam just as in Christianity and is esteemed as a great prophet who foretold the coming of Mohammed.

Ah ah ah, spoken like a true infidel. Sure, the parts of the Koran that you are able to read as a Satan worshiper talk about Jesus as a great prophet. But that's just to throw off the infidels and Satan worshippers. There are portions of the Koran which are written in magical ink which only those who truly love God can see, and those parts explain clearly that Jesus is in fact the son of Satan. The fact that you, as a Satan worshipper cannot see these portions, is proof that it's true that they exist.

[Paradigm]

Ah ah ah! I love it. Great way to shift the burden of proof.

Lets get this straight, buddy. You are making the positive claim that some words in the Bible are evidence of the author's ability to predict the future.

You have the burden of proof.

As far as that is concerned, I met the burden of proof. The words in the Bible said that the Jewish people would reclaim the promised land. Those words were unarguably written down before it happened in 1948. My positive claim that Amos predicted the future is solidly demonstrated.

Now we are discussing a positive claim that you made:

So, this is how it works: EVERYBODY predicts/hopes that things will get better for them. For some people it works out, for others it doesn't.

You made this positive claim that EVERYBODY has made such a prediction, so either back it up or retract it. The burden of proof is on you.

Now, let's say that I concede that I cannot demonstrate that all those civilizations hoped to go back home. Let's say that I couldn't find evidence of that. (I'll look into that, but let's assume for now that I fail)

The fact that we can't find examples of other civilizations' records does not DEMONSTRATE that therefore the Jews are the only ones who ever expressed hope of things ending well.

I cannot tell you how amused I am to see you use this line of reasoning.

"The fact that we can't find examples of any evidence whatsoever for the existence of God does not DEMONSTRATE that therefore the God does not exist."

Sound familiar?

Your blind faith that every civilization has divine prophecies about returning to their ancestral homeland is inspiring, but in the absence of any evidence, blind faith is all it is.

To say that "We can't find records of people hoping for things to go well in the end, therefore the only explanation for the existence of such records among the Jews is their ability to predict the future" is just as absurd as saying "I cannot figure out what the trick in this magic show is, therefore the only explanation is that the guy is performing real magic".

No. The fact that they had writings claiming that God had told them they would return to their homeland and that against all odds they actually did return to their homeland is evidence that they knew they would return to their homeland ahead of time. Your claim is that the ONE civilization that we have any evidence of having such a prophecy also happens to be the ONE civilization that actually did return to their homeland. This doesn't seem like a terribly likely chain of events to me.

The Jew's words are a "fulfilled prophecy" rather than "statistical inevitability" only if the Jews are the only ones who ever uttered those kind of wishful words in history. If you want to make the positive claim that those words are a fulfilled prophecy then the burden is on YOU to demonstrate that the Jews are the only ones in history who ever expressed in writing the wish to go back home.

Surely you see the problem with this. If someone makes the positive claim that organisms diversified as a result of evolution, is the burden on them to demonstrate that God didn't create all the species and then put a bunch of fossils in the ground to test our faith? Of course not. It is a matter of evidence. There is plenty of evidence for evolution, there is no evidence for God creating a bunch of different animals and then creating a fossil cover up.

I have presented evidence that Amos predicted the Jews would get their homeland back and that his prediction was correct.

Your argument hinges on the idea that every civilization had the same prophecy.

The difference is that my argument has evidence and yours does not. Now you are going to claim that I have the burden of proving a negative. Its very Christian of you, but I'm not biting. Without evidence, all you've got is the claim of a purple dragon in your garage.

So, prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that the Pelasgians, Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Babylonians, Mayans, Aztecs, Navajo, Cherokee, Sioux, Suquamish, and Kenyans NEVER expressed desire to go home, and you will have fulfilled your burden of proof with regards to the Jewish authors' ability to predict the future.

I wasn't the one who made a positive claim regarding what these cultures did or did not prophesy. You made an argument entirely based on the assertion that all of these cultures made the same prophecy as Amos, and that Amos just won the prophetic lottery as a statistical inevitability. You made the claim, now it is your turn to back it up.

Wrong. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that people that are banished from their home wish to go back home. It's perfectly reasonable that people who are suffering want to stop suffering.

If we are just going to make statements about what it is and is not reasonable to assume, then my rebuttal is that it is reasonable to assume that Amos could predict the future.

If you wish to make the positive claim that nobody in the history of the planet has ever wished for things to get better when they were bad and that the Jews are absolutely unique in this notorious human tendency, and that therefore their words are a "prophecy" and not a statistical inevitability,

No thanks. I've already made my positive claims, and that wasn't one of them.

then YOU must demonstrate that nobody else in the history of the human race has ever expressed desire to go back to their homeland.

The burden of proof is on you.

No. You'd like it to be, but it's not. I am sure you are quite accustomed to religious folks arguing from ignorance, and it must be weird to be on the other side of the glass, but this is a direct quote from your post:

So, this is how it works: EVERYBODY predicts/hopes that things will get better for them. For some people it works out, for others it doesn't.

You made the positive claim. You have the burden of proof. So either gather your evidence, or retract your claim. Or if you prefer, you could take a page out of the religious playbook and insist that your assertion requires no evidence but your own faith in it. That would amuse me greatly, but might not foster debate as well.

Fail.

A volcano erupts IRRESPECTIVE of human desires. Therefore a volcano erupting because people willed it to, would be inexplicable.

But social change, such as the creation of a nation, DOES happen because of human desires. Therefore it's by no means inexplicable that if lots of people want something to happen WHICH THEY HAVE THE POWER TO MAKE HAPPEN, then that thing happens!

Really. And yet you claim that every civilization in the history of the world has wanted to reclaim their ancestral homeland, and yet only one ever has. Coincidentally, the exact same one that just happens to be the only civilization with any written record of such a prophecy.

If lots of people wish for a volcano eruption and it happens, it's a mystery.

If lots of people want Obama to become President and it happens, it's not a mystery.

Obama's election wasn't predicted thousands of years ahead of time, and if more people wanted him dead than wanted him to be president, he wouldn't be president.

That is the situation with Israel. There are over 50 times as many Muslims as there are Jews, and in general, they wanted a very different outcome for Israel.

Correct. It doesn't say "this will happen OR this will happen." It says ""this will happen AND this will happen." And only some of the stuff happens, by statistical inevitability.

Which is much different from your "I predict I will die on a Monday, OR a Tuesday, OR a Wednesday OR a Thrusday(sic)" example.

Since you are making a positive claim about false prophecies, would you care to provide evidence where Amos makes a prophecy that is demonstrably false? Or are you going to try and pretend like you can shift that burden of proof to me as well?

[notachance]

Paradigm, let's start from scratch.

In my OP I ask for examples of prophecies which demonstrate the authors' supernatural ability to predict the future.

Now, are you making the positive claim that the prophecy in question demonstrates the "supernatural nature" of the Bible?

That's a yes or no question.

[Paradigm]

Paradigm, let's start from scratch.

In my OP I ask for examples of prophecies which demonstrate the authors' supernatural ability to predict the future.

Now, are you making the positive claim that the prophecy in question demonstrates the "supernatural nature" of the Bible?

That's a yes or no question.

Yes, assuming that by "supernatural" you mean beyond the scope of known physical processes.

Are you retracting your positive claim that every nation in history has had the same prophecy, resulting a statistical inevitability for someone to eventually be right?

That is a yes or no question.

[notachance]

Paradigm, let's start from scratch.

In my OP I ask for examples of prophecies which demonstrate the authors' supernatural ability to predict the future.

Now, are you making the positive claim that the prophecy in question demonstrates the "supernatural nature" of the Bible?

That's a yes or no question.

Yes, assuming that by "supernatural" you mean beyond the scope of known physical processes.

Are you retracting your positive claim that every nation in history has had the same prophecy, resulting a statistical inevitability for someone to eventually be right?

That is a yes or no question.

Yes, I retract the positive claim that every person who was ever suffering in exile wished that the exile and suffering would stop. It is entirely possible that some masochistic individuals might enjoy exile and suffering, prosecution and holocaust.

As a side note not relevant to our current debate, I still believe that while it might be hard to back it up with incontrovertible evidence, it's reasonable to assume that people who are suffering will express the desire for the suffering to stop at least a plurality of the times. Would you agree with this tentative claim, or do you reject it until such a time as I can back it up? If you reject it, it's ok for now, my argument is not contingent on it.

Ok, before I ask you the "big question" ("please back up your positive claim about the supernatural"), I have two questions that require a one word answer.

1) Do you make the positive claim that the Jews are the only people who ever expressed desire to return to their homeland in the history of the human race? Yes or no?

2) If I do a card magic trick whereby I correctly guess which card you had picked out of a deck of 52, do you assume that it was a trick unless I can demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that it was real magic, or do you assume it was real magic unless I can demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that it was just a trick?

In other words, if there are two viable explanations for an event, and one fundamentally contradicts known physical processes, while the other explains the event without violating known physical processes, do you agree that the correct methodology is to operate under the assumption that the explanation that doesn't violate known physical processes is the correct one? Yes or no?

Ok, those are the two yes or no questions I have for you. I apologize for any incivility from my part earlier. This looks like a potentially interesting debate, so I hope we can continue it for a while. Please let me know if you have any other basic yes or no questions for me to set the stage for more detailed debate.

[Paradigm]

Yes, I retract the positive claim that every person who was ever suffering in exile wished that the exile and suffering would stop. It is entirely possible that some masochistic individuals might enjoy exile and suffering, prosecution and holocaust.

Yay! I win! I win! I will now do my victory dance:

As a side note not relevant to our current debate, I still believe that while it might be hard to back it up with incontrovertible evidence, it's reasonable to assume that people who are suffering will express the desire for the suffering to stop at least a plurality of the times. Would you agree with this tentative claim, or do you reject it until such a time as I can back it up? If you reject it, it's ok for now, my argument is not contingent on it.

I am not really interested in whether people who are suffering express a desire for the suffering to stop or not. The issue of statistical inevitability is about how many times a prophet/oracle says "My God says that event X will happen" and how that correlates to the number of times that X actually happens.

1) Do you make the positive claim that the Jews are the only people who ever expressed desire to return to their homeland in the history of the human race? Yes or no?

No.

2) If I do a card magic trick whereby I correctly guess which card you had picked out of a deck of 52, do you assume that it was a trick unless I can demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that it was real magic, or do you assume it was real magic unless I can demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that it was just a trick?

In other words, if there are two viable explanations for an event, and one fundamentally contradicts known physical processes, while the other explains the event without violating known physical processes, do you agree that the correct methodology is to operate under the assumption that the explanation that doesn't violate known physical processes is the correct one? Yes or no?

No.

Ok, those are the two yes or no questions I have for you. I apologize for any incivility from my part earlier. This looks like a potentially interesting debate, so I hope we can continue it for a while. Please let me know if you have any other basic yes or no questions for me to set the stage for more detailed debate.

Certainly. I look forward to the debate as well.

If I do a card magic trick whereby I correctly guess which card you had picked out of a deck of 52, and you claim that it was just a trick that can be fully explained by physical processes, do you agree that the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how such a trick could be accomplished? Yes o no?

If you try and tell me that it was a statistical inevitability that I would eventually pick the right card, would you agree that the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate this with some actual statistics? Yes or no?

[notachance]

2) If I do a card magic trick whereby I correctly guess which card you had picked out of a deck of 52, do you assume that it was a trick unless I can demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that it was real magic, or do you assume it was real magic unless I can demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that it was just a trick?

In other words, if there are two viable explanations for an event, and one fundamentally contradicts known physical processes, while the other explains the event without violating known physical processes, do you agree that the correct methodology is to operate under the assumption that the explanation that doesn't violate known physical processes is the correct one? Yes or no?

No.

Ok, so are you claiming that if you're trying to figure out if an event was natural or supernatural, but don't have enough solid evidence to determine either way beyond a reasonable doubt, then the starting assumption is that it is supernatural until such a time as you can reasonably confidently determine that it was actually natural?

Whenever something happens that you don't understand, is your first assumption that it was a supernatural event, and then when you learn more about it, potentially change your mind?

Is this your position? I don't want to put words in your mouth.


Next, I wanted to see if you'd accept a slightly different definition of "supernatural". You defined it as "beyond the scope of known physical processes." I don't like the word "known". That implies that every physical process we don't know or understand about is therefore supernatural. That implies that whether something actually is supernatural depends on what we know about it. That implies that the mechanism of how black holes form is supernatural, whereas in reality it's just a phenomenon that we don't understand yet. It might turn out that we discover that black hole formation is supernatural, but the fact that we don't currently understand it doesn't prove that it's therefore supernatural.

I would offer this definition of natural: "An event that certifiably occurs within the confines of known physical processes"

And I would offer this definition of supernatural: ""An event that certifiably occurs outside the confines of known physical processes"

Do you accept this?

If I do a card magic trick whereby I correctly guess which card you had picked out of a deck of 52, and you claim that it was just a trick that can be fully explained by physical processes, do you agree that the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how such a trick could be accomplished? Yes o no?

Yes, the burden of proof would be on me that it was just a trick. No, if I had to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, "demonstrating the inner workings of how such a trick could be accomplished" would not be the only way in which I could meet the burden of proof. I could make a compelling argument that magic tricks have been done billions of times and have always been demonstrated to be just tricks, therefore the likelihood that this one is different is infinitesimally small. This would not prove this beyond ANY DOUBT, but certainly beyond reasonable doubt.

Sorry for the "yes and no" answer. If you want to try and rephrase it, I will try to give it a straight yes or straight no answer

If you try and tell me that it was a statistical inevitability that I would eventually pick the right card, would you agree that the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate this with some actual statistics? Yes or no?

yes.

Ok, here's my batch of yes/no questions.

You have agreed that you have the burden of proof that the prophecy was supernatural.

Do you agree that if you fail to dispel reasonable doubt that it might have been a non-supernatural event, then you failed to meet your burden of proof? Yes or no?

If you make the claim that Joe Blow survived jumping from a plane because he has the supernatural ability to fly, it's up to you to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't have a parachute, and your inability to find the parachute wouldn't constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't use a parachute. Do you agree with this statement, yes or no?

Within the context of the same analogy: If I doubt that Joe Blow could fly and suggest that he might have used a parachute instead, my inability to demonstrate that he used a parachute, does not equal your ability to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he indeed did not use one. Agree? Yes or no?

If you have the burden of proof, you have to prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt. The opposing party doesn't have to prove the validity of alternative explanations beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you agree. Yes or no?

In order to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the prophecy in question was supernatural, you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't a mere coincidence, that it wasn't a statistical inevitability, that it wasn't a self-fulfilling prophecy, that it wasn't too vague to be a meaningful prophecy, etc. If reasonable doubt remains that the prophecy could have occurred by any number of natural means, then you've failed to meet your burden of proof that it was supernatural. In this situation I don't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was a coincidence, or statistical inevitability, or self fulfilling prophecy, etc It's up to you to prove that it was not. Agreed? Yes or no?

[Paradigm]

Ok, so are you claiming that if you're trying to figure out if an event was natural or supernatural, but don't have enough solid evidence to determine either way beyond a reasonable doubt, then the starting assumption is that it is supernatural until such a time as you can reasonably confidently determine that it was actually natural?

Whenever something happens that you don't understand, is your first assumption that it was a supernatural event, and then when you learn more about it, potentially change your mind?

Is this your position? I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Put this in the context of the definition I gave for supernatural and it might make more sense.

As Larry Niven once famously quoted:

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

The categories are "things within my understanding" and "things outside my understanding."

If I am trying to figure out an event that I do not currently understand, it obviously falls into the latter category, which I am labeling "supernatural"

Next, I wanted to see if you'd accept a slightly different definition of "supernatural". You defined it as "beyond the scope of known physical processes." I don't like the word "known". That implies that every physical process we don't know or understand about is therefore supernatural. That implies that whether something actually is supernatural depends on what we know about it. That implies that the mechanism of how black holes form is supernatural, whereas in reality it's just a phenomenon that we don't understand yet. It might turn out that we discover that black hole formation is supernatural, but the fact that we don't currently understand it doesn't prove that it's therefore supernatural.

I would offer this definition of natural: "An event that certifiably occurs within the confines of known physical processes"

And I would offer this definition of supernatural: ""An event that certifiably occurs outside the confines of known physical processes"

Do you accept this?

Supposing that Amos knew the Jews would reclaim the Promised land, it could be that he is from the future and invented a time machine using very natural scientific methods that we haven't discovered yet, and in that sense his foreknowledge would have been entirely natural.

From my perspective however, a time machine is indistinguishable from magic. I don't care whether we put the prophecy into the Sci-fi category or the Fantasy category. My contention is that the prophecy meets 7 of the requirements from the OP and I dispute the applicability of the 8th. Thus it is supernatural going by the criteria from the OP.

Yes, the burden of proof would be on me that it was just a trick. No, if I had to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, "demonstrating the inner workings of how such a trick could be accomplished" would not be the only way in which I could meet the burden of proof. I could make a compelling argument that magic tricks have been done billions of times and have always been demonstrated to be just tricks, therefore the likelihood that this one is different is infinitesimally small. This would not prove this beyond ANY DOUBT, but certainly beyond reasonable doubt.

Sorry for the "yes and no" answer. If you want to try and rephrase it, I will try to give it a straight yes or straight no answer

If you made such an argument, then would it be reasonable to expect you to produce examples of similar magic tricks and explain how they were accomplished?

Do you agree that if you fail to dispel reasonable doubt that it might have been a non-supernatural event, then you failed to meet your burden of proof? Yes or no?

Yes. Bear in mind that I am still using a definition of supernatural that includes unexplained phenomena, like black holes.

If you make the claim that Joe Blow survived jumping from a plane because he has the supernatural ability to fly, it's up to you to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't have a parachute, and your inability to find the parachute wouldn't constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't use a parachute. Do you agree with this statement, yes or no?

Nope. I have to demonstrate that Joe jumped from a plane, and that he survived the experience. When I say that it is a supernatural event, that means that it is unexplained.

I don't have to disprove every possible alternative explanation. I don't have to prove that there wasn't an army of invisible midgets standing on each others shoulders to hold him up in the air and give the illusion that he was flying. Then we run into the purple dragon in the garage trouble.

If you want to claim that Joe's apparent ability to fly is easily explained by an army of invisible midgets, the burden is then on you to provide evidence for the army of midgets. Similarly, if you want to claim that he was able to survive because of a parachute, you then have the burden of providing evidence for parachute.

Until you provide an explanation that I cannot refute. The event remains unexplained, and thus supernatural.

Within the context of the same analogy: If I doubt that Joe Blow could fly and suggest that he might have used a parachute instead, my inability to demonstrate that he used a parachute, does not equal your ability to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he indeed did not use one. Agree? Yes or no?

No. If you say he used a parachute, my answer is that I see no evidence of any parachute. Then you get to provide evidence of a parachute or move on to invisible midgets.

If you have the burden of proof, you have to prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt. The opposing party doesn't have to prove the validity of alternative explanations beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you agree. Yes or no?

No. If you have the burden of proof, you have to present evidence to support your claims. You don't have to disprove all alternate explanations.

Perhaps my refusal to accept these conditions seem unreasonable to you, but think about it from this viewpoint:

If someone makes the positive claim that the variety of Earth's organisms is the result of evolution, then according to your standards, the evolutionist would then have to prove that God didn't create a bunch of animals and then put a bunch of fossils in the ground to test your faith.

The Creationist could say "maybe Goddidit" and not have to provide any evidence of such.

I think that if an evolutionist makes the positive claim that the variety of organisms is the result of evolution, he only has to prove the facts in support of his point. He has to prove that different organisms appear in different layers of strata, that mutations can be passed on genetically, etc. Those are the facts he has to prove. He doesn't have to prove that God didn't create a bunch of animals and then put a bunch of fossils in the ground to test your faith.

Similarly, I would have to prove the FACTS. Joe jumped out of the plane. Joe survived. I don't have to prove that Joe didn't have a parachute, just as the evolutionist doesn't have to prove that God didn't create a bunch of animals and then put a bunch of fossils in the ground to test your faith.

If you have an alternate explanation for Joe surviving, you have to gather your own evidence to support your hypothesis. Then we can compare the two an see which theory best fits the evidence.

In order to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the prophecy in question was supernatural, you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't a mere coincidence, that it wasn't a statistical inevitability, that it wasn't a self-fulfilling prophecy, that it wasn't too vague to be a meaningful prophecy, etc. If reasonable doubt remains that the prophecy could have occurred by any number of natural means, then you've failed to meet your burden of proof that it was supernatural. In this situation I don't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was a coincidence, or statistical inevitability, or self fulfilling prophecy, etc It's up to you to prove that it was not. Agreed? Yes or no?

Sure. Assuming of course you agree that an evolutionist also must prove that animals weren't put there by God, that they weren't brought here by aliens, that they aren't figments of our collective imagination, that they aren't something that came out of the flying spaghetti monster's nose, etc... in order to meet the burden of proof for a positive claim that animals evolved from other animals.

Otherwise, no. I think that evolutionists and I should be held to the same sort o standard when it comes to our respective burdens of proof.