As a challenge to theists of a particular religion, I ask you to come up with a list of things you would consider to be evidence for the existence of a god NOT of your religion.
As time and life constrains us, this is going to be an ongoing series of posts for me, instead of one long post. Today's topic is:
Prophecy
One of the defining factors for a scientific hypothesis is that it must be able to make predictions. For example, if I hypothesize that the gravity of the earth will pull things toward the earth, then I can use that hypothesis to predict that an object will drop when I raise it in the air and let go. If the object falls to the earth, my prediction came true, and there is no evidence to show my hypothesis is faulty. If the object doesn't fall, then there is proof that my hypothesis is probably in need of revision.
Things get a lot more complicated then that when we are talking in the realm of religion. How do we come up with something that is predictive? There certainly is no shortage of prophesy when it comes to world religions. If I consider a prophet to be someone who is communing with their god, then the predictions they make under the guise of being a prophet, should be indicative of the truth behind their claims.
This of course comes with several caveats. If I'm going to assume a prophesy is a true indicator of a communion with god, we need a process that weeds out what is actual prophesy and what just isn't.
a. The prophesy must predict something that is going to happen in the future.
b. It must predict something extremely specific. I could predict that it will rain in Utah sometime within the next two years, and I'm fairly certain it will come true. It's a vague enough statement that it's unremarkable, and therefore not good enough evidence. Any prophesy must be specific enough that it is irrefutable what the prophesy is about.
c. It must predict something that if true must be beyond probability. I could predict that it's going to rain on a certain day in Panama City in the future. But if that day happens to be during the Panamanian rainy season, it's not a credible prediction. It must be something that if it happened, it is beyond coincidence or statistical inevitability.
d. We must have no other way of knowing beyond that of god's insight. The event must be something that cannot be predicted by natural means.
e. It must predict something that we have no control over. I could predict that a certain person was going to win the lottery on a specific day. If that prediction came true, I would find it far more likely that there was tampering with the lottery than there was an actual god inspired event.
f. The prophecy MUST come true and must be verifiable that it did.
g. When it comes true, the extreme specifics of the prophecy must be carried out accurately. It must be beyond a statistical coincidence that it came true.
h. It must be fulfilled legitimately. There must be no tampering with evidence, or influence toward making the prediction occur in any way. This is probably easier said than done, but it is a crucial part of being able to consider a prediction to be true.
i. One measure of a prophet's communion with god is repeatability of prophesy. I would consider it to be proof if a prophet made multiple accurate predictions that are statistically impossible to predict, and who's results are impossible to fake or manipulate.
As a skeptic, I would want to make sure everything is legitimately done. Also, even if someone was legitimately predicting future events, it is still not 100% proof of god's existence. There could be any number of reasons as to how or why someone could predict the future. But I am willing to concede that if the "prophet" is legitimate, I would find it very compelling as evidence for the existence of the supernatural.
-Mike
Hi Mike,
ReplyDeleteBy way of brief introduction, Cory and I have been having a discussion over the last couple of weeks via Facebook (we've never met face-to-face), and he asked me if I would be interested in participating here. I've read every post and follow-up comment made on this blog from Day 0, and I've enjoyed the exchange. It's refreshing to see respectful debate.
At the risk of sounding obsequious, I must say that I am very impressed with the definition you gave of what God is in your very first post: "He is probably all powerful, all knowing, and can most likely manipulate the universe to his bidding if/when he chooses. This means god is most likely omnipotent, and omniscient." For one who says he does not believe in God, you sure do have a good foundational understanding of his general character--better than many theists, I dare say! I _think_ I remember reading that you said you were a believer at some point; if my recollection is correct, then at some point I would enjoy hearing more of your story.
I think you've got a great point here regarding the topic of prophecy, and I find your criteria for believable prophecy to be very honest and reasonable. I would, however, like to ask for clarification on a few points before I throw in my two cents:
>> c. It must predict something that if true must be beyond probability. <<
Would you please expand on what you mean by "beyond probability"? In your estimation, what odds would be sufficient to qualify as "fulfilled prophecy"? Would a one-in-a-million chance suffice? One in a billion? Trillion?
>> i. One measure of a prophet's communion with god is repeatability of prophesy. <<
Detailing the many prophecies made and fulfilled by a given prophet could be a big mouthful to bite off (i.e. it would lead to some extremely long posts). Would you be satisfied with specific prophesies made by multiple individuals converging on a single event or person?
-dan
Hey Dan! Welcome to the debate!
ReplyDeleteI've been playing with the idea of posting my "testimony" but I don't know if it would be all that interesting. I will probably put something up in my profile.
When I say a prediction must be beyond probability, what I mean is that it can't be a prediction of something that is likely to happen. In the same respect, it must be something that isn't likely to be a "lucky guess". Statistically speaking, probabilities are situational, and the likelihood of the prediction happening are based on what is predicted. This is why I say that it should be specific. The more specific the prediction, the less likely it is to come true to the letter. Ambiguity must be removed if the prediction can be considered as proof.
People win the lottery all of the time. But to win the lottery is beyond statistical likelihood. There is a chance that someone could make an accurate prediction and just have been lucky about it. This is why I say there should be multiple accurate predictions. Along with that, it should be taken into account the AMOUNT of prophecies made. It is much more compelling if someone can make 10 out of 10 accurate predictions versus 2 out of a thousand.
I would not discount multiple individuals making a prophecy or prophecies. That being said, the prophecies would still need to follow the guidelines I stated above. I would NOT consider multiple people making the same prophecy as fulfilling section "i" in my above post. As far as I know, one person came up with the prophecy and then a long game of "telephone" occurred over the years rehashing the same prediction.
I hope this answers your questions! I look forward to your posts Dan!
-Mike