A classic: From creator god ==> Specific God

I think that description could apply to every age!

I agree - accurate foretellings of the future would undermine a major objection to theism.

This prophecy is very specific

Now, take a look at a biblical prophecy and the specifics of it:

Luke 21:20-2420 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near.

21 Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city;

22 because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled.

23 Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people; 24 and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

This prophecy is very specific.

It names a historical city and specific people (the pronouns "you" and "your" plus "they" and "those" applies to the disciples and the Jewish people under the Mosaic Covenant during the 1st-century), a specific region(Judea)  and a specific time frame (when Jerusalem is surrounded by armies once again) and things that do not apply to us today (they will fall by the edge of the sword).

The sword is not used in modern warfare today. Not only this, everything written would incorporate the OT scriptures and quite possibly some NT scriptures (what was written at the time of this author writing - i.e., the OT).

The same can be said of Daniel 9:24-27. It is a very specific prophecy concerning very specific people (Daniel's people who are in a covenant relationship with God) plus a very specific time frame in which specific events will happen.

Establish the reasonableness for Vishnu as creator and sustainer of the universe from your scriptural sources that I may discuss the reasonableness of your claims. 

Vishnu is merely an aspect of Brahman.

Brahman, in the Upanishads (Indian sacred writings), the supreme existence or absolute reality. The etymology of the word, which is derived from Sanskrit, is uncertain. Though a variety of views are expressed in the Upanishads, they concur in the definition of brahman as eternal, conscious, irreducible, infinite, omnipresent, and the spiritual core of the universe of finiteness and change. Marked differences in interpretation of brahman characterize the various schools of Vedanta, the system of Hindu philosophy based on the writings of the Upanishads.

According to the Advaita (Nondualist) school of Vedanta, brahman is categorically different from anything phenomenal, and human perceptions of differentiation are illusively projected on this reality. The Bhedabheda (Dualist-Nondualist) school maintains that brahman is nondifferent from the world, which is its product, but different in that phenomenality imposes certain adventitious conditions (upadhis) on brahman. The Vishishtadvaita (Qualified Nondualist) school maintains that a relation exists between brahman and the world of soul and matter that is comparable to the relation between soul and body; the school identifies brahman with a personal god, Brahma, who is both transcendent and immanent. The Dvaita (Dualist) school refuses to accept the identity of brahman and world, maintaining the ontological separateness of the supreme, which it also identifies with a personal god. [LINK]

The question comes up on is Brahman personal or impersonal? Can you provide passages that speak of Brahman as personal or is Brahman pantheistic - everything and in everything?

Logically, if X (biblical God) is true, then X does not equal Vishnu.

Obviously a hitherto unknown and obscure version of logic and notation...

I think the idea is that if something is the biblical god then it isn't vishnu.

Maybe god appeared to the Jews as yhwh and to the Indians as vishnu.

With two conflicting accounts of Himself?

What are the earliest extant writings regarding Vishnu and how do they guard against corruption? 

I.e., when is the earliest source available? How many copies of that source, or do you claim it is the original revelation from Vishnu? 

The Vedas – these texts date back to about 800 BCE. 

They originate from ancient India. The Vedas are the oldest Hindu texts and even the oldest texts in Sanskrit Literature. These sacred texts are very important for followers of Hinduism. The Hindus consider The Vedas “apaurusheya”. Which means “not of a man” or not of human origin. These texts also have no authors. Hindus believing that these texts are eternal. And they were created nor by human neither by gods. Although, The Mahabharata describes The Vedas to be created by Brahma.

There are 4 Vedas, each containing specific types of texts: Rigveda, Yajurveda, Samaveda and Atharvaveda.

The Upanishads – they are an important collection of ancient Hindu texts. Also, they contain fundamental philosophical concepts of Hinduism. This collection is often called Vedanta. Which can be translated in many ways. But basically describing the fact that the Upanishads are part of the Vedas. And it explains the Vedas.

The Upanishads are mostly philosophical texts describing and defining Hindu religious concepts. Therefore, concepts such as Brahman and Atman represent the central ideas of these texts. Some parts of the collection are believed to date back to about 600 BCE. [LINK]

The earliest extant reference to Brahmanism appears to be the Major Rock Edicts from about 260 BCE. [LINK]

With two conflicting accounts of Himself?

Do you mean like this? [LINK]

Accurate predictions are one confirmation the belief is reasonable. The more accurate and detailed predictions there are the better. 

I agree - accurate foretellings of the future would undermine a major objection to theism.  They wouldn't prove all the minutiae of a religion were correct but they would show that the supernatural has to be taken seriously.

But I don't accept there are supernaturally accurate foretellings in the Bible!  

Regarding prophecy, did the OT predict another building and destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the Jewish system of worship before it happened (i.e., Daniel 9:24-27 as one such passage)? Is that reasonable to believe? If you think not then provide evidence as to why. 

This is your quote. 

Below are those passages.

24 Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people and upon thy holy city, [j]to finish [k]transgression, and [l]to make an end of sins, and to [m]make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up vision and [n]prophecy, and to anoint [o]the most holy. 25 Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto [p]the anointed one, the prince, shall be [q]seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: it shall be built again, with street and moat, even in troublous times. 26 And after the threescore and two weeks shall the anointed one be cut off, and [r]shall have nothing: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and even unto the end shall be war; desolations are determined. 27 And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the [s]oblation to cease; and [t]upon the wing of abominations shall come one that maketh desolate; and even unto the full end, and that determined, shall wrath be poured out upon the desolate.

Show me where in the prophesy you quote, Daniel 9:24-27, 490yrs is mentioned.

Maybe god appeared to the Jews as yhwh and to the Indians as vishnu.

With two conflicting accounts of Himself?

I get where you are coming from, but I don't mind cutting pga a bit of slack on interpreting week as '7 years' if only to give him a fighting chance!  

I think the evidence is good that Daniel is 'fake-prophecy' and it's more interesting to winkle out what the writer was really trying to do with the text.

Is that a reasonable hypothesis? 

How intensely have you looked into biblical prophecy?

We know that Daniel and other OT Scripture was written before the 1st-century.

Maybe god appeared to the Jews as yhwh and to the Indians as vishnu.

With two conflicting accounts of Himself?

Is that wrong?  I'm not really sure about the rules.  

No, I don't even understand the point. 

The Bible, throughout, claims to be His word, His revelation, His interaction with humanity so what is said should conform to what we discover from history and it should be philosophical reasonable and logical

Right, my point exactly! The claim cannot be evidence. It has to be the claim. Being accused of something is not evidence for whatever you're accused of.

The question is can you prove that the creator of the universe is in fact your god. 

Again, it revolves around what would you consider proof? The evidence is most reasonable but even facts can be disputed. 

So no, you cannot prove it this way. 

My evidence would be in the logic of if the biblical God is real then Zeus is unreasonable, as simple as that. The Laws of 

Logic state that two contrary things cannot both be valid at the same time and in the same manner. If God is the biblical God then He is not Zeus. So all I have to do is show the biblical God is reasonable to believe and Zeus is not. 

No, you'd have to show that the bible god is real, and Zeus isn't, or the bible god is reasonable and Zeus isn't.

Don't conflate reasonable with real. You're starting from a position of "it's reasonable to assume there's something that created the universe" which I grant. You do not and have not, now in ten pages, made any advance towards 'and here's why it's the same character this one book claims it is.'

I continue to wait, but you continue to point to the claim (The bible says he's real, it's his word, it claims to be his revelation) as the evidence. I've even offered you a way out of using your god or the bible: demonstrate any other deity conclusively false, without referencing your faith to do so. Their falsity should not be dependent on your faith at all, it's either true or it isn't, right? In other words, if Roman pantheism is false, it doesn't make Christianity true, they are independent of each other. 

It is the most reasonable outcome.

Great! Now please show the following work: from creator of the universe, to the god of the bible being the most reasonably responsible party. Don't use the bible because that's the claim not the evidence. 

Why would I not use the Bible and instead go with your particular bias and worldview slant???

I find you guys never engage in the proofs Christianity offers. 

In the same way that you don't accept "proofs" from other religions.

Convince me they are reasonable. 

Loathe as I am to give any oxygen to this distraction...

I feel like the most reasonable supernatural explanation would have to be a pantheistic version. For example, Roman gods are reasonable because they seem to have "departments," areas of expertise (eventually this would be co-opted by CHristianity in the form of saints). They don't really care too much about humans and what they do (which makes sense, I mean how much time do you spend worrying if ants or frogs are treating each other fairly?). Humans are really afterthoughts that are often collaterally affected by the disputes these gods have with each other. Under the pantheon model, if your husband's boat is sunk at sea in a terrible storm, it's not because part of some plan put your otherwise innocent husband on a boat with a guy a monotheistic god was really mad at and had to kill all on board to get him. It's simply that Jupiter, the god of thunder and lightning and storms or whatever, and Neptune, the god of the sea, were having it out and you were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Oh, a fine lady caught your eye that isn't your wife and you two want to fuck for fun? Sounds like the influence of Eros or Aphrodite is in the air, and you're just caught in the crossfire! Better decide if it's them or one of the trickster gods like Pan the half goat, who often lured folks into bad situations like that only to reveal it to the wife or husband later. Trickster gods, mischief gods, gods for all manner of natural phenomena, none of them omnipotent or ominscient but with their own agendas, never really concerned with humanity in general, that helps explain things like "problem of evil," or why morality is so different from one person to another, with much more reason than "Well, your son's leukemia is something you should be thankful to Jesus for because he planned it." 

If something is not reasonable then why would it be believable?

What historical facts in relation to prophecy are you speaking of?

Any historical facts that confirm the fulfillment of any prophesy.

Reasonable? Do you think contradictory gods are reasonable to believe for the cause of evil over God providing humanity the consequences of judgment from sinful actions?

And what is the evidence that these gods really exist? They call it Roman and Greek mythology. What evidence is there that gives credibility to their existence since you do not even believe in them?

I get what gus is saying here: if you're going to use the biblical prophesy argument, you have to use ONLY the bible, or some biblically spelled out conversion chart for time periods that's IN the bible. Otherwise you are polluting the prophesy by using extrabiblical sources that potentially have a reason to want to have the prophesy work out just right.

[1] I don't see why an all powerful god wouldn't either correct the math or typo in the bible on its own. IF you're arguing for prophesy accurately in the bible, it seems like you give too much ground by saying "In this case, I'll allow some scholar 600 years from when this was supposed to be written originally inform why it was not in fact 70 weeks, but instead it MEANT to say 490 years." It's either in the book or it isn't. [2]You know, the book with talking animals and a worldwide flood that left no evidence after having covered the earth for 40 days (which maybe

 meant 280 weeks?) and pairs of every single species of creature on earth were stored together on a single boat for that long.