Everyone has an opinion. I am about to express mine on this page. However, the problem with some opinions is that they are flawed; and this is because some opinions are not based on sound reason, logic and critical thinking skills. There is a myriad of examples that show how this lack of reason often arises; but these are best viewed on a site that is designed just for that purpose.
A good site that I found (around 2010) was About.com (now defunct), in the category of Religion & Spirituality, under the heading of Atheism. Who is better than an atheist to do the Lord’s work and explain precisely just how much logic plays the key role in confirming that Nostradamus has been illogically argued for so long? Alas, the atheists at about.com went away; but there is another option. Go to school and learn how to think logically. Duke University offers a free course that is to study at your own pace, with five months to complete it. Study at home and get a business certificate from Duke.
Go to Coursera and enroll in an Introduction to Logic Critical Thinking Specialization course (study for free at your own speed), taught by professors at Duke University. Complete the course and get a “Career Certificate” (Link to website)
As a branch of Philosophy, Logic was not invented recently. It goes way back in time, to when mathematics was first figured out and advanced. So, it is a valuable tool that protects one from ads on television or the Internet (one’s smartphone knowing what you like), which are designed to use one’s ignorance of Logic to make sales. It is a gift that keeps on giving.
As to the argument over Nostradamus, it appears to be centered on the disagreement that exists over believability. Either you believe that a human being has the capability to see the future, from some unexplained and amazing powers, or you don’t. The people that believe that Nostradamus had this ability point to several quatrains that they believe are examples of this power. They base their opinion due to a high level of accuracy that they see, between the written words of Nostradamus and known historical facts pertaining to one event. They see Nostradamus’ words as clearly descriptive of those facts. Three specific examples that have been argued by believers, on a television show about Nostradamus’ believability, were three quatrains that: foretold of Henry II being killed in a jousting accident; foretold of Napoleon coming to power; and foretold of Adolph Hitler coming to power. The result of this debate, held at a major university campus (by a show of hands at the end) was: there is no reason to believe in Nostradamus.
That result was just as illogical as the argument for belief in Nostradamus; and it shows the sensationalism of commercial television programming. If television ever produced a program that would disprove Nostradamus once and for all, it would kill the golden goose that would lay the next program about Nostradamus. Television is all about raising interest, peaking you towards belief, then letting out enough air to bring you back to ground, before ending with more doubt cast, so you will tune in the next time to see if anything new has been discovered. Seeing Nostradamus be defeated on a television program is about like watching Penn & Teller (old as dirt, near death) lower a ball at Time’s Square, to show that they correctly predicted the winner and score of the Super Bowl. It’s only entertainment.
If there was any logic used in a debate over Nostradamus, there would be disagreement over the translations that the believers have used. These are not Nostradamus’ actual words written. They are paraphrases of what is believed to have been meant by Nostradamus, when he wrote in a language that is clearly not a standard form of language used to clearly communicate ideas. With a disagreement over something so basic, no argument can ensue over believability in Nostradamus.
That televised debate was between the people that did not believe the people that believed in Nostradamus; and the people that believed believed because they turned the words of Nostradamus into words they wanted to believe. The defeat goes to the people that said what they believed Nostradamus said. The defeat does not go to Nostradamus. It goes to the translators of Old French words into paraphrases composed by someone not Nostradamus.
In fact, Nostradamus did not predict the death of Henry II in a jousting accident. He was a devout Frenchman and had a relationship with King Henry II of France and his queen Catherine de Medici. If he saw his king dying in a jousting accident, then he would have rushed to warn Henry not to take any dangerous risks. Even if that warning changed nothing and Henry still had an accident and died, he would have pointed to that quatrain that Catherine de Medici said was prophecy by Nostradamus and said that himself. Catherine produced hearsay, which Nostradamus might have told her (politely) she was wrong. That is a logical inference that should be made, because if Nostradamus knew this and did nothing, he was a fraud and cheat.
He also, in fact, did not predict the rise to power of Napoleon. People say Napoleon was the second of three Antichrists Nostradamus wrote about. Napoleon was a French hero. The quatrain presented that has been attributed to Napoleon does not fit history. It is twisting words to fit a preconception, based on one or two words. The history of Napoleon is much like the history of Hitler, as both found Russia an inhospitable place in winter, especially is an army is not prepared for cold weather. That justifies the axiom that history repeats. If Hitler was like Napoleon, then the details in the words must fit both totally, or one is just guessing. Guessing is not valid reasoning, as it is more often fifty-fifty (at best), which is not a reliable percentage of accuracy.
I will agree they got the one on Hitler right, partially; but the partial credit is another one of those history repeats examples. There are quatrains that Nostradamus wrote that point to the times that would bring Hitler to power. However, the one they debated was not one. Still, if that is a ‘gimme’ or a gift as a Hitler quatrain, that means only one of three was argued successfully. When partial incorrectness is subtracted, this doesn’t even yield a 1 out of 3 ratio (33%). When that one is realized to be out of 950, that is only a 1 out of 950 ratio (.01%); and the law of probability throws that one out.
How do I know these are facts, you might ask? I went directly to the source. I got Nostradamus to tell me what he meant; and I did this by understanding the two letters that he wrote, for the purpose of explaining his meaning. That is a logical step for critical reasoning.
It all boils down to the only true argument that can be had, which is one between belief in Yahweh and non-belief in Yahweh. This is because when logic is applied to what Nostradamus wrote, he clearly says that Jesus is the source of everything that he wrote on the subject. He said that every quatrain will be found infallibly correct.
In a logical debate, nothing can begin without some agreement reached. This is like setting the ground rules of Logic. Understanding what is agreed upon is the point of agreement, from whence to begin an argument. This means that The Prophecies is stated by Nostradamus to be from a divine source; so the agreement first made must be acceptance of Yahweh and divine prophecy. Without that agreement reached, it is illogical to argue anything Nostradamus wrote. Prophecy is defined as the utterances of a prophet. Nostradamus’ work is entitled The Prophecies and he explained in his letters this divine source bringing everything he wrote to be. That must be a given; and I’m on the belief in Yahweh side. Logic tells me so.
Nostradamus Blog 