Your prophecy about the sun is ridiculous and is not comparison to the Tyre prophecy, but that is what you are doing, comparing them and saying your prophecy about the sun setting is better. I guess that is critical thinking for you.
Why can't my prophecy be compared to the Tyre prophecy? Both made predictions about the future. You said that the Tyre prophecy was accurate as if that made it high quality prophecy. I said that accuracy was not enough and illustrated that fact with a prophecy of my own that was even more accurate, since I specified the date and time. I asked you to go back and look at the provided link describing what the criteria of high quality prophecy were and explain why neither of our prophecies met those criteria. *THAT'S* critical thinking.
But you didn't. Once again, instead of engaging in dialectic, a cooperative effort, you just expressed disagreement with the wave of a hand rather than cooperating in the process. So, this part of the debate ended when you chose not to cooperate. Your prophecy doesn't meet the criteria of high-quality prophecy. If it did, you could make that argument (rebuttal, falsifying argument).
It is painful when people are forcing their beliefs onto you and you don't want to argue them because you know it is no more than a waste of time.
Nobody is forcing any belief on you any more than you are forcing your beliefs on them. Maybe you feel like you are, but you are not because you cannot.
And yes, it is a waste of time to continue making the same argument with people that have already rejected it, given their reasons, and you haven't addressed their objections. I can't say it enough - they have standards that you must know to meet. They have told you what those standards are, but you prefer not to discuss that. If you care to spend your time profitably with them, try learning what they are saying so that you can engage more effectively with them. You will never convince them of anything until you meet those standards except that you don't know or understand them.
As far as it being painful, ask yourself why it is for you and many other believers, but not those you are debating with. I love this activity. It's never painful for me. The worst is boring or irrelevant, as when I can't tell what a poster's purpose or larger point for arguing something ineffectively. I just tell those people that I don't know what the purpose of the discussion is and end it if I don't get a responsive answer. Bad faith argumentation used to annoy me more than it does now, as did bigotry (especially for atheists), but those don't cause emotional responses today. It's a choice to indulge such emotions or to recognize that they are counterproductive, and initially, feel but do not express them until they eventually die away from disuse atrophy, and are no longer felt, either.
you want to discuss a statement about using occam's razor to dismiss prophecy, as if occam's razor is a reason that prophecy is not true. But you're the critical thinker.
You misunderstood. Occam's razor is the reason the best explanation for the existence of biblical prophecy doesn't include a god - a complication that while logically possibly the source of the prophecy, isn't necessary to account for its very human-appearing words. No offense intended, but you probably shouldn't be mocking thinking you haven't mastered and don't appear to recognize.
Focus on the precise meaning of the words you read and resist the temptation to transform them into something you assume they mean before looking at them more closely. I have never said that the prophecy was true or false. I have said that it doesn't suggest transhuman prescience. Those are different ideas. And Occam's Razor dismisses no possibilities. Like all statements called razors, it orders possibilities. Hitchens' Razor says that that which can be offered without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Sagan's is similar: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Neither says that the claims are wrong, just not justified, and so, not to be accepted as correct.
We have one in medicine that says that if you hear hoofbeats, look for horses, not zebras, where horses refer to diagnoses that are commoner and zebras rarer things, and is roughly the equivalent of the duck razor: "If it looks like a duck, etc.." Popper's razor refers to falsifiability, and places unfalsifiable statements at the bottom of any list of things to investigate without calling them wrong.
I already know that you would prefer it if I debated as you do. I do that at times and find that posts get too long and tedious and I cannot keep up.
OK. Thanks for trying. But it remains the case that with critical analysis of dialectic, the last plausible, unrebutted claim is presumed to be correct. If you let me make it, that part of the discission is resolved. Don't forget the courtroom analogy. The jury, if fair and able to evaluate evidence critically, will vote to convict or acquit based in which attorney made that last plausible argument that wasn't successfully rebutted. Think of Trumps 60+ cases brought in desperation to reverse the election results, all rejected using those criteria. The prosecution made zero plausible arguments in the eyes of the judges critically reviewing them, and lost every verdict for that fact.
