What? What does "proving how allegry the predictions are" even mean? Do you know what allegories are?
Nothing. No evidence for Nostradamus being a "counterfeit". Coming later in a timeline doesn't make someone a counterfeit. I made the point I wanted to make about the nature of indeterminacy, and you've turned it into gibberish yet again. I don't know why I wasted my time.
Okay, I'm not getting sucked into this again; I hoped that last post would sink in somehow, but no, it hasn't.
You didn't say the exact words "my book is the word of God and you are wrong for not believing me" but I was paraphrasing the various sentiments you've expressed throughout this discussion (I thought this would be fairly obvious, actually). You insist (like most Christians) that your book is the word of God ("You must be stupid if you can't figure out the bible is Gods word" are your own gentle words), and you use this to assume you have some kind of authority that raises you above the processes of debating that everybody else has to go through.
This has been your whole stance in this discussion from the beginning. You post gibberish and then tell people they're wrong unless they can disprove the rantings that you received from somebody similar to you on the internet. These things do not constitute proof. And saying that some vague writings from years ago managed to remind you of present day events is not proof of anything, especially not that God was involved with writing them. Be open-minded enough (you like saying this to people who don't believe the bible) and you'll see that you can do this with countless other texts - this is what allegories do; it's not unique to the bible!
If you're going to say the bible is the word of God, and use this assumption to raise yourself above any number of philosophers (or whomever) that you turn your nose up at, then you need to provide proof that the bible is the word of God. This has to be the most straightforward point ever, but still you keep insisting that you have to be proven wrong first.
You have provided no proof, alright? And until you grasp this, and appreciate that the onus is on you to provide evidence for the authority you claim your book has, I do not need to enter a debate on your terms.
This is elementary stuff, and if you don't get it you're either wasting my time by trolling or so lacking in wits that you're not worth my time. That really is it from me until you realise your responsibility, as I'm not going to go around in circles with your madness.