So many Prophecies...why no provable hits?

[DeBunkem]

Let's not even start on "creative interpretation" to force some vague verbiage from Revelation , Daniel, and the "prophecies in signs" that are as useful as Nostradamus or your horoscope. The Oracle of Delphi could do as much. Why no prophecy specific enough to be unmistakeably fulfilled in modern times: One-time catastrophes such as the Haitian earthquake or the Holocaust? If specific, is it provably prophecy written before the fact, such as the one foretelling the Persian Cyrus? Since most OT writing was done in Alexandria, Egypt, Jewish scribes had access to a world-class library that arguably would have included a history section, allowing them to gain some knowledge of past events...and fabricate prophecy to fit it.

It seems, people, that this is the very spot
[Megiddo, Israel] where a lot of Christians believe life on earth will end. The irony of religion is that because of its power to divert man to destructive courses, the world actually could come to an end. Bill Maher, "Religulous"

[McCulloch]

Something absurd has meaning.

Sorry to jump in and rip something out of context, but I thought that the fundamental meaning of absurdity is that it lacks meaning.

absurd

1. Contrary to reason or propriety; obviously and flatly opposed to manifest truth; inconsistent with the plain dictates of common sense; logically contradictory; nonsensical; ridiculous.

Wiktionary (emphasis mine)

Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.

[Guest]

Something absurd has meaning.

Sorry to jump in and rip something out of context, but I thought that the fundamental meaning of absurdity is that it lacks meaning.

Yes, out of context, but OK: To whom? All parties involved or just the one who makes the judgment?

absurd

1. Contrary to reason or propriety; obviously and flatly opposed to manifest truth; inconsistent with the plain dictates of common sense; logically contradictory; nonsensical; ridiculous.

Wiktionary (emphasis mine)

Because now this begs the question: What is truth?? Which will create a few hundred pages of debate and end with no definitive across the board answer.

Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.

It has meaning: It "was used to show inadequacy of the then-popular probabilistic models of grammar, and the need for more structured models." (wiki quote)

You used it to make a point about absurdity, as did Chaomsky but applied to grammar. Chomsky was relying upon this only to ensure that the sentences had never been spoken before. It was even more absurd in 1957. But in context, meant something initially only to him, I presume.

In 1957, twitter meant: make high-pitched sounds, as of birds. To suggest it meant: twitters fundamental question is what are you doing? This is can be in its most simplistic for a one or two word answer, but when developed this is a tool that lends itself to developing understanding and potential starting collaboration.

might have been similar to "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." Social networking on the "internet"(?) Now maybe just absurd to those who think social networking is a waste of time.

[Flail]

ie...The claim that 'Jesus was a God' can niether be proven true nor false...therefore such a claim is empty...has no meaning...no relevance....gets us nowhere but mired in yet another superstition.

[Guest]

ie...The claim that 'Jesus was a God' can niether be proven true nor false...therefore such a claim is empty...has no meaning...no relevance....gets us nowhere but mired in yet another superstition.

So you hold all truth and all knowledge simultaneously?

[Furrowed Brow]

attitudes, responses, behaviour, etc are the fruit of thinking.

That is a difficult and complex issue, involving semantics, logic of language, and science, and on the whole from what Ive learnt Id say this is incorrect. For instance spitefulness, intolerance, affection, racism, jealousy, joy, likes and dislikes and so forth are not the fruit of thinking. I am understanding that studies show humans are far less rational than they think they are. What humans are very good at is post hoc rationalization.

Something absurd has meaning. It may be an absurdity, but to even be able to label it with a descriptive as "absurd" the label as to be applied to something. If I label something absurd then I have accepted conditions that must not be absurd and when something does not meet those conditions, in my perspective it has become absurd. For me to call something "meaningless" I have to have some criteria to which I apply to that which I think is meaningful.

Ok. This looks to me like you have put some into this but it kind of looks strained.

There are two theories of language in the air here I think. There is the notion that propositions are true or false, and it the meaning of a proposition is the fact of the matter the proposition represents. This kind of thinking issues from philosophers like Frege, Russell , the early Wittgenstein and A.J Ayer, and a major influence on Poppers introduction of the falsification principle, and in the more spartan form leads to some form of logical positivism. It is this view of language that leads me to say many religious statements are meaningless. Lets call this school of thought the logical view of language.

Then there is the alternative notion that meaning is social, based on context and behaviour and agreed rules of word use as agreed by some group of language users. This take on language arose in the 1960s mostly from Oxford philosophers who were to some degree influenced by or reacting to the writings of Wittgenstein in his later period. Ill call this the Wittgenstenian view of language.

From what you were trying to say I take it you are trying to formulate some home brewed version of a Wittgenteinian view of language. I think the point you are grasping at is we cant deem an utterance as absurd if we do not look at the context of its use, and the various rules and criteria of use that give certain phrases, statements, utterances etc their meaning. This would be indicative of the second Wittgensteinian view of language. (An important point that fall out of this view is that there are no private meanings. Language based on rules is social and only social....you cant have private rules. Also subjective experience cannot give meaning to words.)

Anyhow I accept that phrases like God exist or God live you or God created the universe have meaning in the later Wittgensteinian sense, because these utterances belong to the language game of religion (language game is Wittgensteins term and it is not a pejorative). But to be frank I dont think many theists would buy into that and would like to insist when they say God loves you or God created the universe what they mean is what they say and what they say is true. In which case they are trying to form or think they are forming a proposition in the sense of the logical view of language, and then what they utter is empty of meaning.

I suppose you could be one of those few people that believe that everything they say and do is so in touch with reality ...

To be clear I like to label myself an irrational atheist. Anyhow everything that I say that has meaning is in contact with reality be that as representing some fact or collection of facts, or be that the meaning subsists within some social context, and anything else I say is meaningless.

...that they have self assured themselves that everything outside of their worldview has to be absolutely wrong.

No. Just meaningless or a language game I dont play other than for argument sake in debate.

If thats so, you are not elitist in that....but it is that similar dogma that has people strapping bombs to themselves in the middle east and sending themselves to their appointed destination.

It seems like overkill to blow up folk you think are not saying anything meaningful.

Tensions only arise when some folk play the game badly, or have a ken to impose their language on other folk or on science.

If YOU are the sum total of all your experiences....then I dont see how you can just "be" some way without having picked it up somewhere since you were born.

Wherever I get it from I take ownership of it now.

[Guest]

Something absurd has meaning.

Sorry to jump in and rip something out of context, but I thought that the fundamental meaning of absurdity is that it lacks meaning.

absurd

1. Contrary to reason or propriety; obviously and flatly opposed to manifest truth; inconsistent with the plain dictates of common sense; logically contradictory; nonsensical; ridiculous.

Wiktionary (emphasis mine)

Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.

And as to your PM, you are off topic and I clearly indicated you were OUT OF CONTEXT, which even you said you were. The comment was directed more toward "belief systems" as opposed to absurd one-liners. Thank you. I apologize for responding to your admitted out of context comments.

[Guest]

attitudes, responses, behaviour, etc are the fruit of thinking.

That is a difficult and complex issue, involving semantics, logic of language, and science, and on the whole from what Ive learnt Id say this is incorrect. For instance spitefulness, intolerance, affection, racism, jealousy, joy, likes and dislikes and so forth are not the fruit of thinking. I am understanding that studies show humans are far less rational than they think they are. What humans are very good at is post hoc rationalization.

I am not sure if I agree with you or not on this point. I do agree that there is something deeper than simple thought, but also think that the "attitudes" etc come from the thoughts....the thoughts are something deeper.....maybe it could be described as simple life experiences and then the thought stems from how we react to that experience. My main reason for this belief is that I see absolutely no evidence to suggest that man can actually have a "free" thought. He is only able to create or think when presented with another idea. Granted his thought might be ingenious, but it had a foundation with another piece of information. The best example I can think of is the movie (and I cant remember the name of it) but Melanie Griffith played a secretary who had an idea she submitted to her boss and her boss stole it and presented it as her own. Anyway, when this was discovered, the CEO of the company was smart enough to ask both of them where the idea came from. Of course, the one who stole the idea had no clue. But Melanie explained everything she had seen and how each idea fed off of another until she came up with the good idea. The CEO saw through the others lie then.

Something absurd has meaning. It may be an absurdity, but to even be able to label it with a descriptive as "absurd" the label as to be applied to something. If I label something absurd then I have accepted conditions that must not be absurd and when something does not meet those conditions, in my perspective it has become absurd. For me to call something "meaningless" I have to have some criteria to which I apply to that which I think is meaningful.

Ok. This looks to me like you have put some into this but it kind of looks strained.

There are two theories of language in the air here I think. There is the notion that propositions are true or false, and it the meaning of a proposition is the fact of the matter the proposition represents. This kind of thinking issues from philosophers like Frege, Russell , the early Wittgenstein and A.J Ayer, and a major influence on Poppers introduction of the falsification principle, and in the more spartan form leads to some form of logical positivism. It is this view of language that leads me to say many religious statements are meaningless. Lets call this school of thought the logical view of language.

Then there is the alternative notion that meaning is social, based on context and behaviour and agreed rules of word use as agreed by some group of language users. This take on language arose in the 1960s mostly from Oxford philosophers who were to some degree influenced by or reacting to the writings of Wittgenstein in his later period. Ill call this the Wittgenstenian view of language.

From what you were trying to say I take it you are trying to formulate some home brewed version of a Wittgenteinian view of language. I think the point you are grasping at is we cant deem an utterance as absurd if we do not look at the context of its use, and the various rules and criteria of use that give certain phrases, statements, utterances etc their meaning. This would be indicative of the second Wittgensteinian view of language. (An important point that fall out of this view is that there are no private meanings. Language based on rules is social and only social....you cant have private rules. Also subjective experience cannot give meaning to words.)

Most of my "versions" are "home-brewed." I have an associates in philosophy, but I don't rule one as more favorable than the other, just mainly different. They have their meaning in their place and time. I would have to, however, disagree and say that there are private meanings....which is why I don believe there is a "meaningless" belief system. That could stem from personal interraction with kids with "special needs." Many of them are seeing the world in a very absurd way, but it holds true meaning to them. Granted, I agree that this leaves them in their own world until they are able to communicate what they mean and they cannot do that until they come to a place to understand what is being asked when someones say "What do you mean?" However, I would never approach anyone and say "what you are saying has no meaning," but rather "I do not understand what you mean."

Anyhow I accept that phrases like God exist or God live you or God created the universe have meaning in the later Wittgensteinian sense, because these utterances belong to the language game of religion (language game is Wittgensteins term and it is not a pejorative). But to be frank I dont think many theists would buy into that and would like to insist when they say God loves you or God created the universe what they mean is what they say and what they say is true. In which case they are trying to form or think they are forming a proposition in the sense of the logical view of language, and then what they utter is empty of meaning.

Well, I wont disagree with your observation, but not sure if that is always the intent of the Christian. There are those who simply do not know how to communicate well, and those who are simply religiously self absorbed. There are also those who write off the world becuz they are not Christian and then fail to be able to communicate to something they do not understand. The fact that the mainstream church, particularly in America, is so messed up in dogmas, semantics, cliches, and holding things as sacred which displaces God as any central figure of Christianity......and the list could go on. But this communication issue affects them, but probably most detrimental is their "sacred cows" which, when touched, caused them to go into self defense mode.

I suppose you could be one of those few people that believe that everything they say and do is so in touch with reality ...

To be clear I like to label myself an irrational atheist. Anyhow everything that I say that has meaning is in contact with reality be that as representing some fact or collection of facts, or be that the meaning subsists within some social context, and anything else I say is meaningless.

...that they have self assured themselves that everything outside of their worldview has to be absolutely wrong.

No. Just meaningless or a language game I dont play other than for argument sake in debate.

OK, but you do understand that those in Christianity who hold sacred cows do the same thing in that anything outside of their world view becomes "meaningless"...and breaks down to the idea that atheism is a void of reality. However, "atheism" as an "ism" , the way I see it, alludes to an idea, but does not define, necessarily, an individual. And, of course, "atheism" and "Christian" both have dictionary definitions, but when used by an individual usually are not aware of the definition and instead have created their own.

If thats so, you are not elitist in that....but it is that similar dogma that has people strapping bombs to themselves in the middle east and sending themselves to their appointed destination.

It seems like overkill to blow up folk you think are not saying anything meaningful.

Tensions only arise when some folk play the game badly, or have a ken to impose their language on other folk or on science.

Overkill, yes. But they really do not have an "evangelistic" goal as many Christians might.. ..At least with Christianity you have the option of just being annoyed at overzealous people who like to "witness for Jesus." Islam just says that if you aren't one then they kill you.

If YOU are the sum total of all your experiences....then I dont see how you can just "be" some way without having picked it up somewhere since you were born.

Wherever I get it from I take ownership of it now.

OK. Of course I do not agree, but at least you take responsibility for it.

[Furrowed Brow]

The best example I can think of is the movie (and I cant remember the name of it) but Melanie Griffith played a secretary

Working Girl?

Many of them are seeing the world in a very absurd way, but it holds true meaning to them.

If they behaviour is regular and rule driven even if the rules look absurd then their behaviour is meaningful, but not private....the meaning is in found in the rules and behaviour and not some private internal life that is prior to those rules and behaviour. If there are no rules and no consistency of behaviour then anything they say or do is meaningless. But as it is perhaps near impossible to be utterly erratic then I do not deny there is meaning found in what they do and say.

true for them....well ok....but not true for everyone. Same point applies to the rules and meanings of the theist....these are not true for everyone and my point about meaning is aimed at the grasping at universal truth. However there are some rules that do apply to everyone....if you want to say something with factual content that is meaningful to everyone then that requires a proposition that is true or false for everyone, and not true for one and meaningless for another.

However, I would never approach anyone and say "what you are saying has no meaning," but rather "I do not understand what you mean."

Well it is more a case of what the theist cant mean that motivates the observation that many things they say are meaningless. If we were to say that nothing a theist says holds true or is meant to holdtrue in any universal sense then I would agree everything they say is meaningful.

OK, but you do understand that those in Christianity who hold sacred cows do the same thing in that anything outside of their world view becomes "meaningless"...and breaks down to the idea that atheism is a void of reality.

I understand their language game is a constraint, and I agree that certain brands of strong atheism are meaningless on the logical view of language.

[myth-one.com]

Why no prophecy specific enough to be unmistakeably fulfilled in modern times:

Here's a possibility:

And there shall be upon every high mountain, and upon every high hill, rivers and streams of water in the day of the great slaughter, when the towers fall. (Isaiah 30:25)

Isaiah is a book of prophecy, predicting what will happen in the future. "In the day of the great slaughter, when the towers fall," almost shouts World Trade Center 9/11. The World Trade Center contained twin towers and it was a great slaughter of at least 2,823 innocent people.

The entire chapter thirty of Isaiah describes the futility of relying on strong allies and not God. Israel's ally today is the United States, which is considered to be the world's last superpower. Putting their faith in human power instead of God causes Israel to dwindle down to a few, as a beacon on a hill. Regarding the children of Israel, Isaiah prophesies:

One thousand shall flee at the rebuke of one; at the rebuke of five shall ye flee: till ye be left as a beacon upon the top of a mountain, and as an ensign on a hill. (Isaiah 30:17)

Then following the cycle of obedience/disobedience described so often in the history of the children of Israel, they repent and turn to God and He blesses and rescues them. In what period does this occur?

...in the day of the great slaughter, when the towers fall. (Isaiah 30:25)

"The day of the great slaughter" could refer to the coming battle of Armageddon. "When the towers fall" could place the time of this event as present time if the towers refer to the World Trade Center. Notice that towers is plural. Notice the phrase, "at the rebuke of five." There were five hijackers planned to be aboard each of the four hijacked aircraft. "One thousand shall flee at the rebuke of one." Could one be Osama? Or Ahmadinejad with nukes?

At that same time, verse 25 tells us:

And there shall be upon every high mountain, and upon every high hill, rivers and streams of water ... (Isaiah)

Caused by global warming?

Lots of questions and ifs, and I don't have time to defend it, neither do I desire to, but I throw that out as a wild card possibility of a "modern day fulfilled" prophesy.

[DeBunkem]

A perfect example of "creative interpretation."