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]

Hey Paradigm. Welcome back to the thread. You saw my yes/no questions and my answers to yours? Let's keep our debate moving. Let me know what you think.

It's your move my friend. I replied back in post 299.

[Paradigm]

And where in the Bible did he say such a thing about the coming of Muhammad??.

"And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: "O Children of Israel! I am the messenger of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad." But when he came to them with Clear Signs, they said, "this is evident sorcery!" ", Qur'an 61:6

Uh.. that is a quote from the Quran, which was written down after Mohammed died. That is not a prophecy, but an after the fact story.

It is a story about a prophecy that Jesus supposedly made before Muhammad was born. It isn't a prophecy that I have any interest in defending as miraculous, I was simply correcting notachance's misrepresentation of Islam and supplying a reference when asked. Jesus is not demonized in the Muslim faith. To the contrary he is revered as a great prophet.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled topic.

[notachance]

Hey Paradigm. Welcome back to the thread. You saw my yes/no questions and my answers to yours? Let's keep our debate moving. Let me know what you think.

It's your move my friend. I replied back in post 299.

Oops Ok, got it.

Well man, you're equating "supernatural" with "not understood". That's a false equivalency.

If the definition of supernatural was so loose, then all you have to prove your point is claim that you don't understand how the "prophet" managed to write it down.

Check it out, I'll prove to you that iPads are supernatural. Ready? Go! "I don't understand how iPads work!"

Voila' iPads are supernatural now, just like black holes, the contraceptive pill, aspirin, HIV medication, organic chemistry, trigonometry, etc. I don't understand them, therefore they are supernatural.

Have you ever heard Beethoven's 9th? He wrote it when he was deaf! That to me is entirely beyond comprehension. Is it therefore supernatural?

Heard of people with photographic memory? Then can memorize any 100 digit number by hearing it once. I cannot understand that. Is it therefore supernatural?

JRR Tolkien's book the Lord of the Rings is amazing. Can anybody truly say they fully understand what it is that triggered in him the ability to write such an amazing book? I certainly cannot understand it! Therefore the Lord of the Rings is supernatural.

The other day I ate some peanuts and my throat got swollen. But I'm not allergic to peanuts! I don't understand that! Therefore my throat swelling was supernatural.

If the definition of supernatural is so loose, it literally collapses under the weight of its own meaninglessness.

If you wish your positive claim that "the prophecy in question is supernatural" to have any meaning whatsoever beyond a vapid shrugging of the shoulders accompanied by a disinterested "I dunno", then we have to define supernatural more cogently and restrictively.

Since this issue is upstream of other considerations, I'll address the points you raised about the nature of burden of proof after we've sorted this out, if that's alright with you.



edit: By the way, the quote you mentioned, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", is by Arthur C. Clarke, not the other bloke you mentioned.

Clarke was an atheist, as you'll find out if you look at some of his quotes.

The line about technology and magic was an argument AGAINST belief in the supernatural, not an argument for defining advanced technology as supernatural!

[Goat]

And where in the Bible did he say such a thing about the coming of Muhammad??.

"And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: "O Children of Israel! I am the messenger of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad." But when he came to them with Clear Signs, they said, "this is evident sorcery!" ", Qur'an 61:6

Uh.. that is a quote from the Quran, which was written down after Mohammed died. That is not a prophecy, but an after the fact story.

Oh! Do prophecies have to be written before the event they predict?

You might think it's a joke, but for the last few weeks I've been debating against the notion that a book written in 350 AD contains prophecies about event in 400 BC.

You'd think that it's self evident that the prophecy needs to certifiably precede the event it predicts. I made that the first criterion to identify a prophecy in my OP. And yet the most frequent point of contention on this thread relates to the assertion by theists that a prophecy can be written down centuries after the event in question, and still constitute evidence of the ability to predict the future.

It depends on what you mean by "Prophecy" .. the way that most Christians use it, then yes. If you use it the way the ancient Hebrews did, then no. Prophecy was a different concept, and was more along the lines of a 'Dear Abby' advice about how to live your life to be closer to God... and often was 'proven' with 'signs'. Many Prophets also had the distinction of being voices that were critical of the Powers that Be, so a lot were not popular with the various Kings.

Many prophecy's during that time were 'conditional'.. in other words 'If you continue along the path you are doing, bad things will happen, so shape up'

[Paradigm]

Hey Paradigm. Welcome back to the thread. You saw my yes/no questions and my answers to yours? Let's keep our debate moving. Let me know what you think.

It's your move my friend. I replied back in post 299.

Oops Ok, got it.

Well man, you're equating "supernatural" with "not understood". That's a false equivalency.

If the definition of supernatural was so loose, then all you have to prove your point is claim that you don't understand how the "prophet" managed to write it down.

Check it out, I'll prove to you that iPads are supernatural. Ready? Go! "I don't understand how iPads work!"

Voila' iPads are supernatural now, just like black holes, the contraceptive pill, aspirin, HIV medication, organic chemistry, trigonometry, etc. I don't understand them, therefore they are supernatural.

Have you ever heard Beethoven's 9th? He wrote it when he was deaf! That to me is entirely beyond comprehension. Is it therefore supernatural?

Heard of people with photographic memory? Then can memorize any 100 digit number by hearing it once. I cannot understand that. Is it therefore supernatural?

JRR Tolkien's book the Lord of the Rings is amazing. Can anybody truly say they fully understand what it is that triggered in him the ability to write such an amazing book? I certainly cannot understand it! Therefore the Lord of the Rings is supernatural.

The other day I ate some peanuts and my throat got swollen. But I'm not allergic to peanuts! I don't understand that! Therefore my throat swelling was supernatural.

If the definition of supernatural is so loose, it literally collapses under the weight of its own meaninglessness.

If you wish your positive claim that "the prophecy in question is supernatural" to have any meaning whatsoever beyond a vapid shrugging of the shoulders accompanied by a disinterested "I dunno", then we have to define supernatural more cogently and restrictively.

Since this issue is upstream of other considerations, I'll address the points you raised about the nature of burden of proof after we've sorted this out, if that's alright with you.



edit: By the way, the quote you mentioned, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", is by Arthur C. Clarke, not the other bloke you mentioned.

Clarke was an atheist, as you'll find out if you look at some of his quotes.

The line about technology and magic was an argument AGAINST belief in the supernatural, not an argument for defining advanced technology as supernatural!

Oops, my bad. Their law's are so similar. This was Larry Niven's : "Any sufficiently rigorously defined magic is indistinguishable from technology."

At any rate, the world must be a very magical place for you if you have no idea how anything works. Ipads are not particularly mysterious to me. Neither are the contraceptive pill, aspirin, HIV medication, organic chemistry, or trigonometry.

On the other hand, telekinesis IS mysterious to me. Even if there is some natural law we have yet to discover that allows brainwaves to effect the density of an object and thereby make I float, I still classify moving stuff with your mind as supernatural.

Even if there is some fancy natural explanation for ghosts involving other dimensions of the spacetime continuum and quantum theory, ghosts are still supernatural to me.

How about we call supernatural anything beyond the ability of modern science to fully explain?

Basically me contention with the Amos prophecy is that Amos somehow knew ahead of time that the Jews would reclaim the promised land, and that you will not be able o provide a natural explanation of how he did it.

[notachance]

Well man, you're equating "supernatural" with "not understood". That's a false equivalency.

If the definition of supernatural was so loose, then all you have to prove your point is claim that you don't understand how the "prophet" managed to write it down.

Check it out, I'll prove to you that iPads are supernatural. Ready? Go! "I don't understand how iPads work!"

Voila' iPads are supernatural now, just like black holes, the contraceptive pill, aspirin, HIV medication, organic chemistry, trigonometry, etc. I don't understand them, therefore they are supernatural.

Have you ever heard Beethoven's 9th? He wrote it when he was deaf! That to me is entirely beyond comprehension. Is it therefore supernatural?

Heard of people with photographic memory? Then can memorize any 100 digit number by hearing it once. I cannot understand that. Is it therefore supernatural?

JRR Tolkien's book the Lord of the Rings is amazing. Can anybody truly say they fully understand what it is that triggered in him the ability to write such an amazing book? I certainly cannot understand it! Therefore the Lord of the Rings is supernatural.

The other day I ate some peanuts and my throat got swollen. But I'm not allergic to peanuts! I don't understand that! Therefore my throat swelling was supernatural.

If the definition of supernatural is so loose, it literally collapses under the weight of its own meaninglessness.

If you wish your positive claim that "the prophecy in question is supernatural" to have any meaning whatsoever beyond a vapid shrugging of the shoulders accompanied by a disinterested "I dunno", then we have to define supernatural more cogently and restrictively.

Since this issue is upstream of other considerations, I'll address the points you raised about the nature of burden of proof after we've sorted this out, if that's alright with you.



edit: By the way, the quote you mentioned, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", is by Arthur C. Clarke, not the other bloke you mentioned.

Clarke was an atheist, as you'll find out if you look at some of his quotes.

The line about technology and magic was an argument AGAINST belief in the supernatural, not an argument for defining advanced technology as supernatural!

Oops, my bad. Their law's are so similar. This was Larry Niven's : "Any sufficiently rigorously defined magic is indistinguishable from technology."

At any rate, the world must be a very magical place for you if you have no idea how anything works. Ipads are not particularly mysterious to me.

Well by that token, Amos's prophecy is not "particularly mysterious to me". It is not probabilistically insurmountable that an exiled person would write that his people will return to their homeland one day. To the contrary it seems somewhat reasonable that he would write such a thing. I say "I will get back into that club" every time I get kicked out of one. It is also not probabilistically insurmountable that a generally compassionate world community would reassign a people their homeland after a horrific attempt at exterminating them had brought in sharp relief the unacceptability of 3000+ years of persecution.

Somebody once said "Some day I will win the lottery" and then he did.

Somebody once said "Some day my people will return to their homeland" and then they did.

So? Where's the mystery? Unlikely stuff is a penny a dozen in this universe.

None of this is beyond my understanding. Therefore, since it's not something which I don't understand, it is not supernatural by your definition.

So where does that leave us?

I claim to understand the mechanics of the "prophecy" and therefore make the prophecy non-supernatural by your definition. I claim not to understand the mechanics of an iPad, and therefore make it supernatural by your definition.

You, on the contrary claim to not understand the mechanics of the "prophecy" and therefore make it supernatural by your definition, while making the iPad non-supernatural.

In other words, your absurdly loose definition of supernatural - "That which we don't understand" - makes either iPads natural and the "prophecy" supernatural or vice versa depending on who you ask.

How do you suggest we solve this? Do we split the difference and agree that iPads and the prophecies are both 50% likely to be supernatural? Do we agree that iPads are supernatural on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, that prophecies are supernatural on Tuesdays, Thursday and Saturdays, and let them be whatever they want on Sundays?

At every turn, your definition of supernatural simply doesn't work.

On the other hand, telekinesis IS mysterious to me. Even if there is some natural law we have yet to discover that allows brainwaves to effect the density of an object and thereby make I float, I still classify moving stuff with your mind as supernatural.

Ok, telekinesis is supernatural to you. Beethoven's ability to compose music while deaf is supernatural to me (by your definition).

So how does this work? Do we all agree that as long as there is one person in the world who doesn't understand something, then we define it as supernatural? Do we decide that everybody has to not understand it in order for it to be supernatural? Do we put it to a vote, and if 51% of the population fails to understand it, then we call it supernatural?

It just doesn't work, man! We have to define the supernatural more strictly.

How about we call supernatural anything beyond the ability of modern science to fully explain?

That's preposterous dude! Modern science cannot fully explain gravity! It cannot fully explain the incompatibility between quantum mechanics and relativity. It cannot fully explain the tetrahedral shape of an ammonium molecule. here are lots of things we cannot account for yet scientifically. Let alone account for them FULLY! So are they all supernatural?

I submit to you that there is NOTHING that science can explain fully. So is the entire existence supernatural?

Sure, that prophecy is supernatural. But so is a can of beans. Because I assure you that if you look hard enough, there is some biological, chemical or physical aspect of the existence of that can of beans that science doesn't understand fully. So it's supernatural.

If in order to make the case that the prophecy is supernatural you have to expand the definition of supernatural to encompass everything that exists, then you haven't made a very strong case.

Basically me contention with the Amos prophecy is that Amos somehow knew ahead of time that the Jews would reclaim the promised land, and that you will not be able o provide a natural explanation of how he did it.

I already did provide a natural explanation. Sheer chance. Voila'. Done. Medium rare. Put a fork in it.

Somebody once said "Some day I will win the lottery" and then he did.

Somebody once said "Some day my people will return to their homeland" and then they did.

So?


That's my first point. The second point is that your contention about Amos specifically is inherently flawed because predicated on an absurd definition of the supernatural.

Never mind that I CAN provide a natural explanation for it. Even if I couldn't, it would STILL not mean it's supernatural. Because to claim that everything I cannot explain is therefore supernatural is patently absurd!

I personally cannot explain an iPad. Humanity as a whole cannot explain certain aspects of gravity. And humanity as a whole might never be able to fully explain anything, including a can of beans.

It doesn't fly bro.

We have to have a better definition of supernatural.

I can understand why you would resist that, because you know that with anything short of your absurdly loose and all-encompassing definition of supernatural, you will never be able to support your positive assertion that the prophecy was supernatural.

Be a gentleman and concede now my friend. Please don't drag me through 8 pages of meaningless back and forth. I know that you're sharp as a whistle and bested me in two arguments already, and there's no way you haven't figured out the situation here by now.

[Paradigm]

I'm not too keen on the term 'supernatural' at all honestly. I think that supposing the existence of God, there is no reason to believe that God isn't natural, that prophecies aren't natural or that miracles aren't natural. Conventional use of the term "supernatural" is as a catch all to describe aspects of creation that people don't understand like miracles, telepathy, ghosts, dragons, faeries, voodoo, etc...

I was under the impression that you wanted to debate whether any of the prophets in the Bible had genuine foreknowledge, but it seems you agree that Amos had divine foreknowledge of the future and merely wish to equivocate about whether his foreknowledge of future events was 'natural' or not.

So, I'll tell you what, we shall use the definition of supernatural prophecy that you already provided, with the exception of the 8th point which I dispute:

A supernatural prophecy we shall define as

A prophecy that:

1) must have been demonstrably written down before the event it predicts.
2) must have demonstrably actually been made
3) A predicted event must be reliably documented.
4) must be specific enough that it cannot be adaptable to multiple scenarios that are likely to happen eventually.
5) has to be no other reasonable way to explaining it than by supernatural means.
6) cannot be surrounded by inaccurate prophecies that conflict with the accurate prophecy.
7) can only be considered evidence of the supernatural if it predicts something that is extremely unlikely.

Sound fair?

Now, if you will kindly address whether you think an evolutionist should have the burden to disprove every alternate theory about the variety of species, such as God creating a bunch of animals and putting fossils in the ground to test your faith, aliens bringing a bunch of animals they created over in spaceships, animals being expelled from the FSM's nose when it sneezed etc...

[notachance]

I was under the impression that you wanted to debate whether any of the prophets in the Bible had genuine foreknowledge, but it seems you agree that Amos had divine foreknowledge of the future and merely wish to equivocate about whether his foreknowledge of future events was 'natural' or not.

Nope. That is not my position at all. I reject the claim that Amos had divine foreknowledge of the future, and don't care if you attach the "natural" or "supernatural" label to it, since I don't believe, based on my understanding of reality, that such a thing as foreknowledge of the future is possible at this time, or in the bronze age.

I operate under the perfectly reasonable assumption that the probability of somebody writing down something and then that thing happening is no more unlikely than winning the lottery.

As unlikely as correctly predicting an event or winning the lottery might be, unlikely things happen in the universe all the time.

Heck, a couple won the lottery FOUR TIMES IN A ROW. If the probability of winning once is one in a million, the probability of winning 4 times is one in one million million million million. And yet it happened.

So, I'll tell you what, we shall use the definition of supernatural prophecy that you already provided, with the exception of the 8th point which I dispute:

Ok. We can use my definition of supernatural if you like: A supernatural event is an event that has certifiably been demonstrated to have happened beyond the scope of natural processes of the universe.

But why do you reject criterion 8?

It's a perfectly reasonable notion. If lots of people, for a long time, actively struggle and work to make something happen (which is physically possible for them to make happen) then they will increase the likelihood of it happening.

If I make the prophecy that I will sleep with 300 women in 2012, then the fact that in an effort to accomplish that I go to singles' bars every night that year, will certainly increase the likelihood of me fulfilling my prophecy.

Please justify your rejection of the absolutely logical and rational notion that the desire to fulfill a prophecy that is physically possible to fulfill, will increase the likelihood of that prophecy being fulfilled!

A supernatural prophecy we shall define as

A prophecy that:

1) must have been demonstrably written down before the event it predicts.
2) must have demonstrably actually been made
3) A predicted event must be reliably documented.
4) must be specific enough that it cannot be adaptable to multiple scenarios that are likely to happen eventually.
5) has to be no other reasonable way to explaining it than by supernatural means.
6) cannot be surrounded by inaccurate prophecies that conflict with the accurate prophecy.
7) can only be considered evidence of the supernatural if it predicts something that is extremely unlikely.

Sound fair?

No it doesn't, because you have yet to justify to my satisfaction your rejection of criterion 8.

Nonetheless I have already shown your example fails to meet criterion 5, by offering a reasonable way of explaining the situation other than by supernatural means: Sheer chance.

Unless you demonstrate that the probability that "Amos would write what he wrote and that Israel would be created in some shape or form at some stage in the future" is WAAAAAAAAAAY lower than the probability that somebody would win the lottery 4 times in a row, then you cannot reject that just like the latter happened by strictly natural means, then the former could easily have happened by natural means as well.

Criterion 4 is also problematic for you. The prophecy doesn't set a timeline or define the specific way in which Jews would return to Israel. Therefore the prophecy is "adaptable to multiple scenarios that are likely to happen eventually".

The probability that I win the lottery if I buy just one ticket is very low. The probability that I win if I buy 10 million tickets is very high.

The probability that the Jews regain Israel on any specific day in a specific way is very very low (although no lower than the chance of winning the lottery 4 times in a row). On the contrary the chance that the Jews will eventually return to Israel in some shape or form at some stage between, say, 500 BC and 50,000 AD is pretty substantial. However unlikely something is, if given enough time, chances are it will eventually happen. Of all the days it could have happened in a virtually limitless timeline, it just happened to be on May 14th 1948. So what.

Now, if you will kindly address whether you think an evolutionist should have the burden to disprove every alternate theory about the variety of species, such as God creating a bunch of animals and putting fossils in the ground to test your faith, aliens bringing a bunch of animals they created over in spaceships, animals being expelled from the FSM's nose when it sneezed etc...

I concede that I was wrong.

So this is where we stand.

You have conceded that "that which we don't understand" is not a valid definition of supernatural. Or, even if you haven't conceded that, you've agreed to abandon that definition for the purpose of this debate.

So:

You are trying to demonstrate that Amos had the power to predict the future by means that are certifiably beyond the physical processes of this universe.

It's not impossible that the prophecy was fulfilled by sheer chance, with probability enhanced by the Jews' desire to end their exile, and with probability enhanced by the lack of specifics or timeline in the prophecy. Your burden of proof is to demonstrate that even thought it is entirely possible that it happened by the completely natural means I outlined, it actually did not, but rather it happened by means that can certifiably be demonstrated to be beyond the natural processes of the universe.

Ok.

I'm listening.

[Paradigm]

Nope. That is not my position at all. I reject the claim that Amos had divine foreknowledge of the future, and don't care if you attach the "natural" or "supernatural" label to it, since I don't believe, based on my understanding of reality, that such a thing as foreknowledge of the future is possible at this time, or in the bronze age.

Sweet, lets debate that then instead of the semantics of the is 'natural' or 'supernatural'.

I operate under the perfectly reasonable assumption that the probability of somebody writing down something and then that thing happening is no more unlikely than winning the lottery.

As unlikely as correctly predicting an event or winning the lottery might be, unlikely things happen in the universe all the time.

Heck, a couple won the lottery FOUR TIMES IN A ROW.

By the same token, unlikely as the idea that an all powerful creator God would have any interest in us at all, much less that He would entrust particular individuals with foreknowledge of future events may be, unlikely things happen in the universe all the time.

Heck, a couple won the lottery FOUR TIMES IN A ROW.

Up to this point, your sheer chance theory fare no better than my prophecy theory.

Nonetheless I have already shown your example fails to meet criterion 5, by offering a reasonable way of explaining the situation other than by supernatural means: Sheer chance.

I don't think that explanation is reasonable. For that explanation to be reasonable, you have to start demonstrating that there were similar prophecies in most other civilizations that went unfulfilled.

Unless you demonstrate that the probability that "Amos would write what he wrote and that Israel would be created in some shape or form at some stage in the future" is WAAAAAAAAAAY lower than the probability that somebody would win the lottery 4 times in a row, then you cannot reject that just like the latter happened by strictly natural means, then the former could easily have happened by natural means as well.

I think that when someone is consistently able to predict a very unlikely event, it is more reasonable to assume that their apparent foreknowledge is the result of some kind of system, rather than a product of random chance.

Lets click on your link and see what we find shall we?

Verlyn Adamson said earlier in the week that he's a big fan of math puzzles. He claims he developed a formula for lottery picks, but his winnings have been small until now.
Thompson said the Adamsons are "exploring patent protection" for the equation.

And there you have it.

Since you made the positive claim that the lottery was won by sheer chance, now you have the burden of proof. The lottery winner himself claims that it wasn't sheer chance.

Criterion 4 is also problematic for you. The prophecy doesn't set a timeline or define the specific way in which Jews would return to Israel. Therefore the prophecy is "adaptable to multiple scenarios that are likely to happen eventually".

Ancient civilizations aren't 'likely' to come back in control of their ancestral homeland eventually. They are 'likely' to exist only in history books.

The probability that I win the lottery if I buy just one ticket is very low. The probability that I win if I buy 10 million tickets is very high.

The probability that the Jews regain Israel on any specific day in a specific way is very very low (although no lower than the chance of winning the lottery 4 times in a row). On the contrary the chance that the Jews will eventually return to Israel in some shape or form at some stage between, say, 500 BC and 50,000 AD is pretty substantial. However unlikely something is, if given enough time, chances are it will eventually happen. Of all the days it could have happened in a virtually limitless timeline, it just happened to be on May 14th 1948. So what.

The Bible oes give a timeline. It predicts that the Jews would regain their homeland in 1948:

Ezekiel 4:5-6
For I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity, according to the number of the days, three hundred and ninety days: so shalt thou bear the iniquity of the house of Israel. And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year.

Punishment = 390 years + 40 years = 430 years

Because of their disobedience to God's commands, the Israelites were taken captive in 605 B.C. by the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar (2 Chronicles 36:5-21).

Later, King Cyrus of Persia conquered Babylon. In 536 B.C. Cyrus allowed the Jews to leave Babylon and return to their homeland.

Punishment completed = 70 years (605 B.C " 536 B.C.)

Punishment remaining = 430 year " 70 years = 360 years

Even though King Cyrus gave all Jews permission to return home, only a small number actually accepted the offer. The Jews had become comfortable in pagan Babylon and chose to stay in exile. Because of their disobedience to God, the 360 years of punishment remaining were multiplied by 7. The reason for this is explain in the book of Leviticus (Leviticus 26:18, 26:21, 26:24 and 26:28). In Leviticus, it says that if the people did not repent while being punished, the punishment would be multiplied by 7. Thus the unrepentant Israelites multiplied the remaining duration of their exile by 7.

New Punishment = 360 years x 7 = 2,520 years

The 2,520 years are actually Jewish lunar years. The lunar years must be converted as follows:

2,520 years x 360-day lunar calendar = 907,200 days

907,200 days divided by 365 days = 2,485.479 years

Exactly 2,485.479 years from 536 B.C. is 1948.

So:

You are trying to demonstrate that Amos had the power to predict the future by means that are certifiably beyond the physical processes of this universe.

Amos predicted it, (as did many others) and it then came true. The most reasonable conclusion is that Amos (and others) somehow knew that it would happen ahead of time.

Just like if I say "You are going to win the lottery tomorrow" and then you do in fact win the lottery tomorrow, the reaction of a reasonable person is not, "man, that was a lucky guess on your part." The reaction a reasonable person is "How on earth did you know?"

It's not impossible that the prophecy was fulfilled by sheer chance, with probability enhanced by the Jews' desire to end their exile,

Except the Israelites weren't in exile in the 8th century BC when Amos wrote his prophecy. The Babylonians weren't even a threat then, it was the Assyrians Israel was dealing with at that time.

and with probability enhanced by the lack of specifics or timeline in the prophecy.

A timeline was provided later by Ezekiel.

Your burden of proof is to demonstrate that even thought it is entirely possible that it happened by the completely natural means I outlined, it actually did not, but rather it happened by means that can certifiably be demonstrated to be beyond the natural processes of the universe.

I don't need to entirely disprove your theory any more that an evolutionist needs to entirely disprove creationism or alien transplant theories. My burden of proof is to demonstrate that my theory fits the evidence better and more reasonably than yours does.

Ok.

I'm listening.

It is entirely reasonable to think that Israel reclaimed their homeland by sheer chance, even though the odds of that happening are extremely slim. Only Civilization out of thousands has accomplished it.. What isn't reasonable is to claim that multiple prophets who declared that this would happen, and even gave a timeline for it happening were all just making lucky guesses.

The only reasonable explanation for Amos's ability to predict the Israelites return to power is that he was privy to foreknowledge of future events.

[notachance]

Nope. That is not my position at all. I reject the claim that Amos had divine foreknowledge of the future, and don't care if you attach the "natural" or "supernatural" label to it, since I don't believe, based on my understanding of reality, that such a thing as foreknowledge of the future is possible at this time, or in the bronze age.

Sweet, lets debate that then instead of the semantics of the is 'natural' or 'supernatural'.

I operate under the perfectly reasonable assumption that the probability of somebody writing down something and then that thing happening is no more unlikely than winning the lottery.

As unlikely as correctly predicting an event or winning the lottery might be, unlikely things happen in the universe all the time.

Heck, a couple won the lottery FOUR TIMES IN A ROW.

By the same token, unlikely as the idea that an all powerful creator God would have any interest in us at all, much less that He would entrust particular individuals with foreknowledge of future events may be, unlikely things happen in the universe all the time.

Heck, a couple won the lottery FOUR TIMES IN A ROW.

Up to this point, your sheer chance theory fare no better than my prophecy theory.

Nonetheless I have already shown your example fails to meet criterion 5, by offering a reasonable way of explaining the situation other than by supernatural means: Sheer chance.

I don't think that explanation is reasonable. For that explanation to be reasonable, you have to start demonstrating that there were similar prophecies in most other civilizations that went unfulfilled.

Unless you demonstrate that the probability that "Amos would write what he wrote and that Israel would be created in some shape or form at some stage in the future" is WAAAAAAAAAAY lower than the probability that somebody would win the lottery 4 times in a row, then you cannot reject that just like the latter happened by strictly natural means, then the former could easily have happened by natural means as well.

I think that when someone is consistently able to predict a very unlikely event, it is more reasonable to assume that their apparent foreknowledge is the result of some kind of system, rather than a product of random chance.

Lets click on your link and see what we find shall we?

Verlyn Adamson said earlier in the week that he's a big fan of math puzzles. He claims he developed a formula for lottery picks, but his winnings have been small until now.
Thompson said the Adamsons are "exploring patent protection" for the equation.

And there you have it.

Since you made the positive claim that the lottery was won by sheer chance, now you have the burden of proof. The lottery winner himself claims that it wasn't sheer chance.

Criterion 4 is also problematic for you. The prophecy doesn't set a timeline or define the specific way in which Jews would return to Israel. Therefore the prophecy is "adaptable to multiple scenarios that are likely to happen eventually".

Ancient civilizations aren't 'likely' to come back in control of their ancestral homeland eventually. They are 'likely' to exist only in history books.

The probability that I win the lottery if I buy just one ticket is very low. The probability that I win if I buy 10 million tickets is very high.

The probability that the Jews regain Israel on any specific day in a specific way is very very low (although no lower than the chance of winning the lottery 4 times in a row). On the contrary the chance that the Jews will eventually return to Israel in some shape or form at some stage between, say, 500 BC and 50,000 AD is pretty substantial. However unlikely something is, if given enough time, chances are it will eventually happen. Of all the days it could have happened in a virtually limitless timeline, it just happened to be on May 14th 1948. So what.

The Bible oes give a timeline. It predicts that the Jews would regain their homeland in 1948:

Ezekiel 4:5-6
For I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity, according to the number of the days, three hundred and ninety days: so shalt thou bear the iniquity of the house of Israel. And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year.

Punishment = 390 years + 40 years = 430 years

Because of their disobedience to God's commands, the Israelites were taken captive in 605 B.C. by the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar (2 Chronicles 36:5-21).

Later, King Cyrus of Persia conquered Babylon. In 536 B.C. Cyrus allowed the Jews to leave Babylon and return to their homeland.

Punishment completed = 70 years (605 B.C " 536 B.C.)

Punishment remaining = 430 year " 70 years = 360 years

Even though King Cyrus gave all Jews permission to return home, only a small number actually accepted the offer. The Jews had become comfortable in pagan Babylon and chose to stay in exile. Because of their disobedience to God, the 360 years of punishment remaining were multiplied by 7. The reason for this is explain in the book of Leviticus (Leviticus 26:18, 26:21, 26:24 and 26:28). In Leviticus, it says that if the people did not repent while being punished, the punishment would be multiplied by 7. Thus the unrepentant Israelites multiplied the remaining duration of their exile by 7.

New Punishment = 360 years x 7 = 2,520 years

The 2,520 years are actually Jewish lunar years. The lunar years must be converted as follows:

2,520 years x 360-day lunar calendar = 907,200 days

907,200 days divided by 365 days = 2,485.479 years

Exactly 2,485.479 years from 536 B.C. is 1948.

So:

You are trying to demonstrate that Amos had the power to predict the future by means that are certifiably beyond the physical processes of this universe.

Amos predicted it, (as did many others) and it then came true. The most reasonable conclusion is that Amos (and others) somehow knew that it would happen ahead of time.

Just like if I say "You are going to win the lottery tomorrow" and then you do in fact win the lottery tomorrow, the reaction of a reasonable person is not, "man, that was a lucky guess on your part." The reaction a reasonable person is "How on earth did you know?"

It's not impossible that the prophecy was fulfilled by sheer chance, with probability enhanced by the Jews' desire to end their exile,

Except the Israelites weren't in exile in the 8th century BC when Amos wrote his prophecy. The Babylonians weren't even a threat then, it was the Assyrians Israel was dealing with at that time.

and with probability enhanced by the lack of specifics or timeline in the prophecy.

A timeline was provided later by Ezekiel.

Your burden of proof is to demonstrate that even thought it is entirely possible that it happened by the completely natural means I outlined, it actually did not, but rather it happened by means that can certifiably be demonstrated to be beyond the natural processes of the universe.

I don't need to entirely disprove your theory any more that an evolutionist needs to entirely disprove creationism or alien transplant theories. My burden of proof is to demonstrate that my theory fits the evidence better and more reasonably than yours does.

Ok.

I'm listening.

It is entirely reasonable to think that Israel reclaimed their homeland by sheer chance, even though the odds of that happening are extremely slim. Only Civilization out of thousands has accomplished it.. What isn't reasonable is to claim that multiple prophets who declared that this would happen, and even gave a timeline for it happening were all just making lucky guesses.

The only reasonable explanation for Amos's ability to predict the Israelites return to power is that he was privy to foreknowledge of future events.

Hey man. I'm going to put replying to all points you made on the back burner, and focus exclusively on trying to figure out with the mathematical calculation you exposed.

I was unaware of it, and must admit I'm seriously puzzled by it.

Gimme a day or so to check it out and gather my thought.

Good job though, man. You're a killer debater. G'nite for now.