The Unfalsifiability of Retrospective ‘Prophecy’

The Unfalsifiability of Retrospective ‘Prophecy’ September 4, 2018

Those who claim to speak to God and to receive “prophecy” have developed a foolproof system for “verifying” their predictions: Make them only in retrospect. Rarely do they publish their “prophecies” ahead of time. The few who do, like Pat Robertson every year, are almost always wrong except when they’re being incredibly vague, but they are safe in the knowledge that their followers will believe anything, no matter how absurd. Here’s another self-declared “prophet” pointing to dreams as “evidence” for his abilities.

“God has been speaking to me in dreams for about eight years and I have a long history of God revealing things to me about the future in dreams,” Hayes said. “And I’ve come to rely heavily on the revelation that I receive from God in dreams. It’s proven to be pretty darn accurate, as long as I interpret it correctly.”

“God started speaking to me about Q in dreams in December,” Hayes said, recounting a dream in which he said that someone was “correcting my wrong understanding” of things that had happened in the past in order to open his eyes to the hidden connections between seemingly unrelated incidents.

“Since then, I’ve probably had well over 75 or 80 dreams about Q, including a couple over the last couple of nights that are very interesting and have to do with people that I think are going to be arrested pretty soon, that Q has been alluding to arrests coming,” Hayes said, recounting how his initial dream ended with the mysterious figure telling him “that this is primarily about the children.”

“Once God spoke to me about Q, I was like, ‘Okay, if this is primarily about the children, saving children that are being trafficked,’” Hayes said that he knew that he could not ignore it. “I can’t say no to that. In for a penny, in for a pound. I decided to go all-in on Q.”

And when it all turns out to be nonsense, when Trump leaves office without having put the Clintons or Obamas in jail for cannibalism and pedophilia, then what? Oh, he left himself the obvious out: “as long as I interpret it correctly.” All it takes is just a tiny little change in interpretation to keep the con game going for as long as necessary. Heads he wins, tails you lose. The predictions are easily testable, but only if you don’t allow yourself the luxury of changing the claim when the test is failed. The good news for these grifters is that P.T. Barnum rather drastically underestimated just how often a sucker is born.

"Good question. None that I can think of."

Trump Adds Starr Dershowitz to Impeachment ..."
"But only if you’re a Republican."

Trump Adds Starr Dershowitz to Impeachment ..."
"Don't be silly, Ed Bratyon! Of course VP Pence can't win and rewin election! President ..."

Hank Kunneman Delivers a Testable Prophecy
"I guess it is wrong to lie about an affair, but totes ok to pay ..."

Trump Adds Starr Dershowitz to Impeachment ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment