Flann wrote:I don't know about the Romans but the Jews certainly knew the difference.

No, they didn't know the difference. Search for "Jewish Magical Practices" and you'll read the endless list of absurdities from the days of ancient Rome. And that's not to mention that things we now know to be natural that were as of yet unknown to them. For them to have known the difference, they would have had to have modern knowledge.

You just say, I don't even have to attempt a naturalistic explanation.

I don't. Are you mocking this answer as if it's unfair in some way, or preposterous?

The argument I made was that based on what we do know about human ability to predict the future

There are countless tricks, both intentional and unintentional, that people have used for ages to dupe others into thinking they're doing something impossible - something obviously outside normal human abilities. This list is nearly endless, so vast in so many fields of knowledge that no single person could ever know of them all. And this isn't to mention all the ways that haven't yet been discovered, or have been lost in the distant past. Or all the ways we will never discover yet are still possible.

To rule out all the naturalistic explanations is an impossible task, because in order to do so, you'd need to have the total sum of all possible naturalistic explanations. Anything less is an argument from ignorance.

Well of course all is not as cut and dried in evolutionary theory land as your response suggests. Richard Dawkins,(who else) has a contention with E.O.Wilson on the theory and had a longstanding one with Stephen Jay Gould on the same said theory.
When these slightly unseemly spats emerge in the media we are reassured that this is the beauty of science and that disagreements lead to better understanding etc.
Obviously though either Gould or Dawkins are wrong on the point of contention and ditto Wilson or Dawkins.

I guess we're not getting anywhere. Let's try something more formal:

P1: We haven't yet come up with all possible naturalistic explanations or resolutions to existing issues.
P2: We must know all possible naturalistic explanations or resolutions before we can rule them out.
C: It is impossible to rule out all naturalistic explanations for detectable phenomena.

The two premises will remain true for the unforeseeable future. Which means the conclusion becomes a bit more encompassing:

C2: It will always be impossible to rule out all naturalistic explanations for detectable phenomena.

Which means, even if there is a supernatural element to the universe, we logically cannot have knowledge of it. The entire concept of supernaturalism breaks down. It becomes a placeholder for ignorance, as I've often repeated on Booktalk.

So to try and narrow down where we disagree, attack my logic. Be specific. Attack one of the premises, or the logic connecting them to the conclusion.

Sorry for not engaging here with the thread of the debate. For me the most interesting aspect is how the topic of predicting the future relates to the questions that each religion asks and tries to answer. It's commonly said by humanists that all the great religions ask the same ethical questions, so that there really are no great differences. Steven Prothero, in God Is Not One, reminded us that's not the end of the story by any means; each religion either poses other questions or has a divergent way of answering them. So with the Abrahamic religions we have this matter of authority regarding origins and history assuming central importance. What other religion besides Judaism and Christianity would think to claim that both their origin stories and their subsequent history were ordained by God as the only possible truths? It must place Judaism in a unique position to make this claim that such and such a figure foresaw the future correctly because God has this ability and lent it to him. Buddhism and Hinduism don't care about these issues, by and large. I'm trying to be impartial and not to say that one faith family is better than another, even though my own personal bias may be known. Even if we were assured that all claims of authority in the Bible were true, I wouldn't see the point of caring so much about them, and certainly not of basing a religion on them. I may have a peculiar outlook.

Interbane wrote:Flann wrote:
I don't know about the Romans but the Jews certainly knew the difference.




No, they didn't know the difference. Search for "Jewish Magical Practices" and you'll read the endless list of absurdities from the days of ancient Rome. And that's not to mention that things we now know to be natural that were as of yet unknown to them. For them to have known the difference, they would have had to have modern knowledge.

There were occult Jewish practices which are mentioned in the old testament such as divination and consulting mediums among others. Even there a distinction is made between these and supernatural acts of God.
You ignore the gospel accounts all within the first century A.D.
You don't believe them but it's absurd to suggest that the raising of Lazarus after being several days dead and buried would be explained by "magic" or believed to be so.
Likewise the instantaneous calming of the storm on the lake at Jesus word.
That seasoned fishermen would be confused and imagine an alternative naturalistic explanation is not reasonable.

Interbane wrote:To rule out all the naturalistic explanations is an impossible task, because in order to do so, you'd need to have the total sum of all possible naturalistic explanations. Anything less is an argument from ignorance.

Interbane wrote:I guess we're not getting anywhere. Let's try something more formal:

P1: We haven't yet come up with all possible naturalistic explanations or resolutions to existing issues.
P2: We must know all possible naturalistic explanations or resolutions before we can rule them out.
C: It is impossible to rule out all naturalistic explanations for detectable phenomena.

The two premises will remain true for the unforeseeable future. Which means the conclusion becomes a bit more encompassing:

C2: It will always be impossible to rule out all naturalistic explanations for detectable phenomena.

Which means, even if there is a supernatural element to the universe, we logically cannot have knowledge of it. The entire concept of supernaturalism breaks down. It becomes a placeholder for ignorance, as I've often repeated on Booktalk.

When it comes to prophecy I can understand arguments which attempt to postdate or retrofit them whether good or bad.
Some can't be postdated.
So if you have O.T. prophecies of historic events or of a messiah called by the prophet "the servant of the Lord" and describing God's purpose of atonement and salvation in historic time by the messiah then the explanation is staring you in the face.
To say there must be some naturalistic explanation for what is stated plainly as divine purpose and working is self refuting.
You have a philosophy of naturalism and for you everything must ultimately have a naturalistic explanation.
It's a bottomless well which must have all answers somewhere.
An ordinary detective though can eliminate a great number of possibilities very quickly from the evidence and is searching for likely explanations and motives etc.
To just appeal to your bottomless well is a cop out in my opinion. If you can't produce a credible likely naturalistic explanation,what does that say?
Others attempt this by postdating,or conspiracy theories of liars and fabricators etc.

Flann wrote:You don't believe them but it's absurd to suggest that the raising of Lazarus after being several days dead and buried would be explained by "magic" or believed to be so.
Likewise the instantaneous calming of the storm on the lake at Jesus word.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. What does this have to do with the Jews being able to distinguish the natural from the supernatural? If you use this as support, it needs support first. You can't support a premise on nothing but air.

Flann wrote:That seasoned fishermen would be confused and imagine an alternative naturalistic explanation is not reasonable.

Flann, do you realize how many assumptions are required before this statement can be taken seriously? Two thousand years have passed since the supposed fishermen supposedly saw this supernatural event.

You're using that to support the existence of the supernatural? In turn, you use the existence of the supernatural to support the anecdote, and round and round you go.

I apologize if you were making a point regarding the Jews here instead of supporting the supernatural, but the same issue applies. You must first support the story before using it to support something else. Why do you so readily abandon proper method here? You can't support this stuff on thin air.

Flann wrote:To say there must be some naturalistic explanation for what is stated plainly as divine purpose and working is self refuting.

Why? Format that logically.

But first, to clarify, I'm not saying there 'must" be a naturalistic explanation. I've said this a few times now.

You have a philosophy of naturalism and for you everything must ultimately have a naturalistic explanation.

No.

It's a bottomless well which must have all answers somewhere.

Correct. And the bottom of the well is currently beyond our ability to know. The answers are beyond us at this point.

If you can't produce a credible likely naturalistic explanation,what does that say?

You answer that, please. If I can't produce a credible likely naturalistic explanation, what does that say? I'll answer first if you wish, but I really want to hear your answer.

When it comes to prophecy I can understand arguments which attempt to postdate or retrofit them whether good or bad.
Some can't be postdated.

This doesn't even scratch the surface of possible explanations. I really wish you'd attempted to engage with my formal logic. Struggling with it would lead you to some of the conclusions you're forcing me to spell out.

Have all naturalistic explanations regarding the prophecies you mention been formulated and examined and dismissed? Not just the ones you know of, but the entire possible set? Bear with me before responding...

The simple answer is, no. Such a task would require us to be omniscient, and we're not. Therefore, you cannot rule out a naturalistic explanation(meaning, the entire set, rather than a discrete explanation). By definition, you can't. It's impossible Flann. And since the only way to support a supernatural explanation is to rule out the contrapositive, it is impossible to support a supernatural explanation.

If proper method were easy, all of humanity would more or less agree on what is true. This stuff isn't easy. But if you want to know why I think religious people are irrational, it is because they refuse to follow proper method even when it's spelled out to them. Or perhaps not refuse, but not entirely understand. The simple substitution of the word "must" isn't a mere quibble over semantics, it changes the logical structure of what I'm trying to communicate. It's a misunderstanding that leads to further misunderstandings. This is why I'm asking you to engage with my formal logic, so that you aren't tempted to reword what I'm saying and avoid the inherent logic.

Flann 5 wrote: I've tried to address the question of authorship and dating of Isaiah on Robert's rational "eschatology thread" so that's where you will find that. That's crucial really as it's spoken as being before the Babylonian exile itself so the temple is still standing when the prophecy of the return to Jerusalem and rebuilding the temple as granted by Cyrus is spoken.

Thanks for the reference. I will check it out.

Flann 5 wrote:I think there is good evidence that the Jews were zealous for their prophetic writings. The transcribers and translators of the Jewish scriptures famously were almost O.C.D. in their punctiliousness is performing these tasks.

Well, we know from Qumran that some just plain got lost. And we know from there and other sources that variants of a text did appear. But that is neither here nor there. We know almost nothing about the length of time between utterance and writing. In Jeremiah's case it would seem to be very brief, but that is the same guesswork as in the other cases, where it seems to be longer. We do not know at what point "Isaiah" began to be circulated as a single work. In general, I am happy to go with the obvious of what I see, rather than try to force it to fit some point I want it to make.

Flann 5 wrote:I think there is a problem with the argument. Since in Isaiah 45 God is declaring his knowledge of the future and contrasting this with the impotent idols it would be strange that an after the historic facts second author could get this accepted as it would be palpably false and would in fact be dishonest.

If I understand you correctly, this seems to me to be a sensible statement but leaving out some obvious other possibilities. So, for example, if a second prophet, or prophetic school, composed the declaration about Cyrus and its predictions came true, then others would likely circulate the writing. And if one reader recognized thematic connections between I Isaiah material and II Isaiah material, that reader might have a scribe put the two together. If there were no concerns of authenticity that were considered important then, then no one would make a fuss about putting the two together.
It seems likely that some of these were at one time used for simple inspirational reading, like we might read N.T. Wright or C.S. Lewis, but without a modern obsession for the historical accuracy of the backstory. We also have pretty good reason to believe that Deuteronomy was composed centuries after King David, but nobody seems to have gotten upset about its being claimed to be a book of Moses, and even having a story about being found in the walls made up about it.

Flann 5 wrote: Of course scripture has to be interpreted

Well, that is everyone's privilege, but when I get the feeling that someone is interpreting the scriptures differently from their probable intent in order to support some agenda, I tend to tune out.

Flann 5 wrote:From a new testament perspective some passages in the O.T. have a wider spiritual application to the future church of Jews and Gentiles.

I think my statement has it more accurately - Jesus took the inspiration and made something more of it - and some of his followers later decided those passages had been planted in advance, with some divine purpose in mind. I fear I do not feel compelled to agree with those who claim such advance planning, just because they claim they are giving glory to God.

Flann 5 wrote: Likewise the instantaneous calming of the storm on the lake at Jesus word.
That seasoned fishermen would be confused and imagine an alternative naturalistic explanation is not reasonable.

However, we have numerous examples of people telling exaggerated stories about their favorite figures, to make some literary point of just for the fun of a good story. You are deeply committed to believing in the accuracy of the stories in your faith tradition, and that is admirable IMHO, but don't let it get in the way of human relations with people who take a more skeptical view.

Harry Marks wrote:Flann 5 wrote:
I think there is good evidence that the Jews were zealous for their prophetic writings. The transcribers and translators of the Jewish scriptures famously were almost O.C.D. in their punctiliousness is performing these tasks.



Well, we know from Qumran that some just plain got lost. And we know from there and other sources that variants of a text did appear. But that is neither here nor there. We know almost nothing about the length of time between utterance and writing. In Jeremiah's case it would seem to be very brief, but that is the same guesswork as in the other cases, where it seems to be longer. We do not know at what point "Isaiah" began to be circulated as a single work. In general, I am happy to go with the obvious of what I see, rather than try to force it to fit some point I want it to make.

Hi Harry, I'm not sure what you base your statement that "some just plain got lost" on. I'm not an expert or authority in this whole area.
Textual critics seem to be temperamentally of a particular bent of mind. I've done some quick online checking and it seems that the Qumran community had their particular favourite books of the O.T. which fitted their emphases.
In the main the N.T. writers quote from the Greek septuagint translation and of course virtually every O.T. book is quoted including those not found represented at Qumran.
So the books not found at Qumran were not lost (unless you mean the originals) but were included in translation in the septuagint.
There is no dispute that there are textual variants and the textual critic's work is to try determine what the best most likely original readings are.
Do these majorly change the book of Isaiah? Not really,but that's a very technical study and I'm not a scholar of Hebrew.
I did have a look at one chapter where variants were compared and they don't dramatically change the meaning.
It can't even be taken as given that a Qumran manuscript is more accurately copied than other manuscripts.
Here's the article I linked on Robert's thread on authorship and dating of Isaiah.

www.ukapologetics.net/2criticalisaiah.html

Harry Marks wrote:If I understand you correctly, this seems to me to be a sensible statement but leaving out some obvious other possibilities. So, for example, if a second prophet, or prophetic school, composed the declaration about Cyrus and its predictions came true, then others would likely circulate the writing. And if one reader recognized thematic connections between I Isaiah material and II Isaiah material, that reader might have a scribe put the two together. If there were no concerns of authenticity that were considered important then, then no one would make a fuss about putting the two together.

I think what needs to be recognised is that there was an Isaiah the son of Amoz. I think it's also crucial to see just how speculative the 19th century higher critics were and as I say the more archaeology uncovers the less credible their speculations have become.
You seem to be taking a position that someone in Babylon during the captivity 'prophesied' maybe partly subconsciously and maybe partly on how history looked likely to unfold almost immediately. Is that accurate?
What has to be acknowledged is that this later writing was then attributed to Isaiah the son of Amoz and is presented as being prior to the captivity and while the temple in Jerusalem is still standing.
That's plain fraud.

Harry Marks wrote:We also have pretty good reason to believe that Deuteronomy was composed centuries after King David, but nobody seems to have gotten upset about its being claimed to be a book of Moses, and even having a story about being found in the walls made up about it.

Again Harry,this is based on the higher critics "documentary source hypothesis." At the bottom of the article linked above you will find another link which examines this.
I also provided on Robert's thread an article on archaeology in relation to this.

Harry Marks wrote:Flann 5 wrote:
Of course scripture has to be interpreted




Well, that is everyone's privilege, but when I get the feeling that someone is interpreting the scriptures differently from their probable intent in order to support some agenda, I tend to tune out.

That's fair enough Harry. I would personally be quite tentative about whether the reference in question was to Cyrus or Israel though I lean towards the interpretation I suggest.
www.biblehub.com/nasb/isaiah/45.htm
I think as the chapter develops and looking at verses 21 to 25 it becomes clear that something more than a physical deliverance of Israel from Babylon is suggested with "Look to me and be saved all the ends of the earth."
Verse 25 says; "In the Lord all the offspring of Israel will be justified and will glory"
Paul of course in the new testament is quite detailed in Romans chapters 9 to11 on the Israelites and God's purposes.

As I said there are clearer passages using similar language and applying it to Israel. Chapter 60 is a good example.
We find Paul in Galatians 4:21-31 contrasting the covenants of law and grace and directly quoting Isaiah 54:1.
He says "Jerusalem which is above is free",and then quotes Isaiah.
So there is an understanding that there are certainly passages directly referencing the historic nation and people of Israel but others seen as applying to the church made up of Jews and Gentiles.
Tellingly this passage Paul quotes immediately follows chapter 53 of the suffering messiah.
Granted there is interpretation here but I don't think it's trying to bend things into shape but to see what makes sense by including the overall context and writings in Isaiah.

These threads are always abandoned. Booktalk is a ghost town of failed theist arguments. Flann, at least answer this one question from my last post.

You posed it first, but I want to hear your answer.

If I can't produce a credible likely naturalistic explanation,what does that say?

Interbane wrote:These threads are always abandoned. Booktalk is a ghost town of failed theist arguments. Flann, at least answer this one question from my last post.

You posed it first, but I want to hear your answer.

If I can't produce a credible likely naturalistic explanation,what does that say?

It says that you can't and you just appeal to possible naturalistic unknowns.What is obvious is that the Hebrew prophets spoke in the name of the Lord.
The most reasonable explanation for the fulfillment of their prophecies is exactly what they say, which is that they spoke by inspiration of the spirit of God.
It wasn't just one but many prophets over centuries prophesying a messiah who would bring redemption to man by atonement.
Prophets were human and their writings just as natural as their speech but it's the source that is claimed and vindicated by history that is significant.
http://www.jewsforjesus.org/answers/pro ... prophecies
Of course there are those who deny the historicity of Christ and his crucifixion under Pilate and others who claim retrofitting.
As I pointed out on another thread Daniel prophesied a time frame for the coming messiah and the surprising fact that he would be "cut off" and the destruction of Jerusalem and it's temple following this by the "people of the the prince that will come" who happened to be the Romans.
You may be satisfied that all this was fulfilled and can be explained some other way naturalistically, but I see no good reason to reject the stated explanation.

Flann wrote:It says that you can't and you just appeal to possible naturalistic unknowns.

Right, but that's not a conclusion. You're just restating the question. Give an actual answer. Again, if I can't produce a credible likely naturalistic explanation,what does that say?

Flann wrote:The most reasonable explanation for the fulfillment of their prophecies is exactly what they say

Why is that reasonable? I see no reason to support the idea men foretold the future. What is the reason?

Flann wrote:I see no good reason to reject the stated explanation.

Reject it? Don't you have to accept it first? We don't have enough information to do either. We're at the starting position here, which is that we don't know. Well, perhaps the inductive evidence for the uniformity of nature could push us to reject it. But we don't even need to bring that up. You have yet to offer a good reason to accept the idea that men foretold the future.