# Successful Prediction(s) about the Physical World from Scripture.



## caddy (Sep 11, 2007)

Concerning this statement:

*The argument is simple. I have yet to see a successful prediction about the physical world that was inferred or extrapolated from the content of any religious document*


----------



## VictorBravo (Sep 11, 2007)

caddy said:


> Concerning this statement:
> 
> *The argument is simple. I have yet to see a successful prediction about the physical world that was inferred or extrapolated from the content of any religious document*



My guess is that the proponent of the argument would regret it if he saw it. Fervent heat and all.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 11, 2007)

caddy said:


> Concerning this statement:
> 
> *The argument is simple. I have yet to see a successful prediction about the physical world that was inferred or extrapolated from the content of any religious document*



I don't get what is so important about the statement. I would have some epistemological bones to pick with it. He says that *he* has yet to see _____________. 

So? All he has stated is that it hasn't lived up to his (extremely fallible) standards of truth. This isn't good science. THis is bad philosophy. 

Why should we really care if a truth-statement doesn't live up to his arbitrary conditions of truth? 

But let's grant his proposition. Does that really prove the falsity of the Christian claim? I don't see how.


----------



## Mathetes (Sep 11, 2007)

I have yet to see a successful prediction about the moral world that was inferred or extrapolated from the content of any atheist/agnostic document.


----------



## caddy (Sep 11, 2007)

Good Point J

Just looking for different points and angles on this....


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 11, 2007)

How about the birth of Christ and his death. What about the prediciton of the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 by Daniel?


----------



## caddy (Sep 11, 2007)

Excellent ! Thanks man...


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 11, 2007)

While we can appeal to history in the Christian case (and we should), a lot of times you will have to clear the playing field. Appeal to Christ. Resurrection, destruction of Jerusalem, the prophecies of future Reformed blogs. All of these are good and valid proofs of Christianity. But there is one catch: he doesn't accept your "facts."

Summation point: We must first show the inadequacies of his philosophy of fact before he accepts our facts. Our starting point, method (which is where facts come in) and our conclusion must be consistent. They must presuppose (here I am showing my cards) theism.


----------



## Tim (Sep 11, 2007)

Perhaps one day, scientists will be forced to admit that macro evolution (molecules to man) is false. Perhaps they will be forced to admit there was a worldwide flood. Of course, at this time, the proponent of the proposition in the original post would not make this admission. But someday...

It's really a question of worldviews. His worldview will not allow him to accept what scripture has to say regarding the physical world, so he will naturally interpret what he observes according to his own (faulty) worldview. Thus, it will seem to him that scripture is unable to predict things physical. The proponent will claim neutrality from which he can evaluate the success of scripture, but this neutrality does not actually exist, because he presupposes the errancy/inability of scripture. 

Everybody presupposes things. This fact weakens the argument that we are considering.


----------



## caddy (Sep 11, 2007)

Thanks Tim

Absolutely we all presuppose things. I continue to wonder, however, to what degree a distinct "veiling" of the Gospel is real and evident in the lives of unbelievers while a general knowlege of the Creator is -- or should be -- presupposed by all men. I completely understand that we are all accountable. Romans 1 said we all should innately know, yet Corinthians talks about the the Gospel being veiled:

*2 Corinthians 4:*3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. 
 




Tim said:


> Perhaps one day, scientists will be forced to admit that macro evolution (molecules to man) is false. Perhaps they will be forced to admit there was a worldwide flood. Of course, at this time, the proponent of the proposition in the original post would not make this admission. But someday...
> 
> It's really a question of worldviews. His worldview will not allow him to accept what scripture has to say regarding the physical world, so he will naturally interpret what he observes according to his own (faulty) worldview. Thus, it will seem to him that scripture is unable to predict things physical. The proponent will claim neutrality from which he can evaluate the success of scripture, but this neutrality does not actually exist, because he presupposes the errancy/inability of scripture.
> 
> Everybody presupposes things. This fact weakens the argument that we are considering.


----------



## MW (Sep 11, 2007)

Mathetes said:


> I have yet to see a successful prediction about the moral world that was inferred or extrapolated from the content of any atheist/agnostic document.



 A penetrating insight into the psychology of unbelief.


----------

