The Miracle of Water.

[Woberts]

There were no goat herders who wrote a single word of scripture as far as I know

The ignorance in this statement is immeasurable.
Unfortunately, that's the norm.

 

[Windwalker]

Because that's how I see it. Either the Bible is the unadulterated thoughts of a transcendent being with insights unavailable to unaided humanity, insights that should be treated as authoritative and infallible, or it is at least in part the ideas of human beings, which I would not receive that way.

But let's assume for a minute that the thoughts are "infallible" and "authoritative". How is it in your mind that your understanding then there will be the same? You can have 500 people all reading the same source material, and the end result will be 500 individualized interpretations of it. So a claim of an "authoritative and infallible" source, means nothing at all. No one person has an infallible and authoritative interpretation.

The only thing such as claim does, is bolster the argument of the person claiming that their interpretation is the right one over the others, and they find all the reasons in the world why everyone else's interpretation is flawed, expect for their own. So the whole infallibility claim boils down to one simple thing. Ego, not God.

The Impossibility of Scriptural Authority

The internal contradictions in the Bible tell me that one or both of the conflicting ideas came from humankind. Even if one were divine, which one? Any amount of contamination with human input makes the book

Makes the book, what? You didn't finish your sentence. Unreliable? Nonsense. If it speaks to you, if anything speaks to you in such a way that it inspires good in you, then it is the voice of God, and it need not come from a "perfect" vessel, in how our minds expect something to be flawless. A homeless person could smile at you, and speak more truth than the entire canon of scripture. God doesn't need the written word to speak, nor do we need it to hear.

So am I - electric guitarist. I think I know what inspiration is as well. In fact, I was inspired by Jerry Garcia, Duane Allman, and Dickey Betts.

This is a different use of the word inspired than what I was speaking of. Being influenced by other styles, or by another performance is not the inspiration I am talking about. I am talking about "Spirit breathed" inspiration. Something that wells up from deep within you with no external source at all. It's the impulse to speak, anything, anything that begins to convey that deep urge that has no voice yet, but is unstoppable in its desire to come out and take shape in some such way as to give voice to that urge. It is the voice of the poet, a longing, a urge to unfold as Truth. It is an expression of the soul.

That's very different than being inspired by Prince to be a better musician. You're talking motivations here. I'm talking true Art for Art's sake alone.

And that means the same in this context as it did with the Flintstones and West Side Story : I started with the work of others - assorted lead guitar solos that I found moving - and tried to capture the feel of the other guitarists without plagiarizing them.

Myself, I started with no one but myself. I started with an urge to get out of my soul the desire to speak, whereas no other voice, no other imitation of others, came close to that yearning to get out of me into form whatever that was, beyond my comprehension, needed to come out. I needed to find Hope. I needed to express Love. I needed to release pain and loss. It became like seeking for a glass of cool water to a parched tongue.

That is how I am defining inspiration, and when it comes to the words of religious texts, I believe it is that very same yearning to express into form Spirit itself, "We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans." That is the Source of true inspiration. That we are imperfect vessels, that our egos get into there too sometimes, does NOT erase Spirit from what is expressed. This is something I believe you are missing.

I'd like to hear some of your music, and your feedback as a fellow musician (or anybody else's).

I enjoyed your music. Thanks. I like that style.

I haven't got anything current I'm doing which I've moved into the mastering stage, just quite yet. I have an older work, also from the mid-90's, which looking back on I can say was a mixture of genuine inspiration and ego; ego inasmuch as I was always worried how others might accept it, whether or not they'd think I was "good musician" or some such distraction. Others may not hear that, but I know it was there "constricting" it some.

In listening to this, as opposed to my original solo-piano creations from the mid 80's which were the birth of music for me, at a time of deep loss and pain in my life, these are clouded a bit by the technical aspects of music creation. Today, I've returned to that pure inspiration, letting my soul just speak its words through me, letting it just be my voice I cannot speak in other words. That's what I'm currently working on to release, at some very near point. It's much more open, spacious, and flowing again now. As they say.... soon......

From 1996: website (There are song descriptions in the scroll-down window on the right).

BTW, I'm currently using Studio One 3.5 as my DAW, with a Presonus 1818VSL and a Behringer ADA8200 expansion for a full 16 inputs, most of which are currently filled. I play about a dozen different instruments, with piano being my main go-to instrument.

Does this god exist anywhere else but my heart? If so it has a presence outside myself.

Of course outside, as well as inside, equally, with no divisions or borders, no boundaries. God is Infinite and All-Present, everywhere, at all moments. You can't exclude God from anywhere at it still be God. God doesn't have holes in it, like a block of swiss cheese.

And yes, I feel urges, desires, compulsions, and inspirations, but I don't attribute them to a sentient being speaking to me. Notice that I don't deny this possibility. I simply don't accept it either.

I don't consider it "speaking to me". Rather, through me, through all my faults and flaws, yet a perfect expression of Spirit. "Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: 29 yet I say unto you, that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these."

Are lilies "Flawless and Infallible and Authoritative"? We'd do well to listen to and learn from Jesus' insight here. True inspiration, is found in everything, if we have the ears to hear and the eyes to see. It boils down to the divide between Ego and Spirit. Ego hears ego. Spirit hears Spirit.

Here's an interesting problem :

When we have one group of people claiming to have a certain kind of knowledge or experience such as the experience of a god, and another saying that they have no such experiences, how do we determine if the first group is claiming to experience something that is not there, or if the second group lacks the ability to experience something that is there?

Easy. We compare the reports of those claiming to be experiencing whatever it is that we are discussing - in this case a god or gods. Descriptions of this god vary widely, which suggests to me that such people are simply experiencing their own minds and projecting that experience onto external reality (objectifying subjective experience).

Compare that to somebody with red-green color blindness that makes red look like green to them. How can such a person confirm that he cannot see what is being honestly and accurately reported by others? Show red and green socks, for example, to people that claim to be able to see these colors. The answers from honest people with normal color vision interviewed independent of one another will be the same. That's how we know that they really are experiencing what they claim they are.

It is on this basis that I conclude that people claiming to experience God are experiencing their own minds and confusing it for something else.

Or more simply stated, people are translating their genuine and authentic experiences of God through the filters of their own minds. The experience is the same, the interpretation is different due to the facts of lanugage, culture, personality, stage of development, and a long list of other factors. You think you need to get rid of all that to know for a fact what a glass of cool water tastes like?

 

[BilliardsBall]

There is no such thing, to the best of my knowledge. This is what the scientific method is, it includes an hypothesis, but there is no "hypothesis method". That sounds made up. Here is what the scientific method actually is: Scientific method - Wikipedia

The process of the scientific method involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments or empirical observations based on those predictions. A hypothesis is a conjecture, based on knowledge obtained while seeking answers to the question.​

Exactly as I stated before. Nothing you said changes that.


Such as?

Why are you being difficult? All scientists who are seeking knowledge hypothesize, then observe/perform inductively. We can use the same method for the Bible. Google where the Bible has God saying "Test me in X" to see some tests you can do!

 

[Windwalker]

Why are you being difficult? All scientists who are seeking knowledge hypothesize, then observe/perform inductively.

I'm not being difficult. There is no such thing as the "Hypothesis Method". That is a fact. Why are you refusing to say you were wrong? The difficulty is yours, most apparently.

We can use the same method for the Bible. Google where the Bible has God saying "Test me in X" to see some tests you can do!

Please explain how you would apply the Scientific Method to the Bible? I'm very well-versed in scripture, and I fail to see how applying the Scientific Method to it has any value whatsoever. Can you give me one example that comes into your mind? Where do you start with a hypothesis, then come up with a series of tests, run the experiments, take notes, then detail you research for other qualified peers to run the same set of tests and compare notes. Please present your research papers for peer review, if you think that method is applicable to God.

 

[BilliardsBall]

And when it does, they have uniformly been actually falsified. For example, the existence of a global flood is eminently testable and has been shown to be false.

It's amazing to hear a skeptic/materialist who "only believes what they can see/test" make declarative, absolute statements, about ancient events. Were you there or was there a time machine involved in your inductive observations?

1) Are there Bible statements that the Noahic Flood was accompanied by other catastrophic occurrences that could have altered climate/geology, etc.?
2) Do species and migration align with a Flood narrative?
3) What do scientists think is the purpose of the massive water bodies that are now believed to be beneath all land masses on Earth?
4) Etc.

 

[Windwalker]

2) Do species and migration align with a Flood narrative?

NO. They do not. In fact, what we know proves the narrative is fiction. Here's a great explanation I found which specifically addresses that point you raised.

While creationism explains everything, it offers no understanding beyond, “that’s the way it was created.” No testable predictions can be derived from the creationist explanation. Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. In those few instances where predictions can be inferred from Biblical passages (e.g., groups of related organisms, migration of all animals from the resting place of the ark on Mt. Ararat to their present locations, genetic diversity derived from small founder populations, dispersal ability of organisms in direct proportion to their distance from eastern Turkey), creationism has been scientifically falsified.​

Please do yourself a favor and read this, with an open heart to God to be corrected about the errors of your beliefs: https://www.botany.org/outreach/evolution.php

 

[Polymath257]

It's amazing to hear a skeptic/materialist who "only believes what they can see/test" make declarative, absolute statements, about ancient events. Were you there or was there a time machine involved in your inductive observations?

1) Are there Bible statements that the Noahic Flood was accompanied by other catastrophic occurrences that could have altered climate/geology, etc.?
2) Do species and migration align with a Flood narrative?
3) What do scientists think is the purpose of the massive water bodies that are now believed to be beneath all land masses on Earth?
4) Etc.

Events in the past have effects that last until today. A global flood would be dramatic enough that the evidence would be absolutely obvious. No time machine is required--just basic facts.

Remember that the original investigators of much of this material were Christians who were *looking* for evidence to support the flood myth. They didn't find it and that caused a lot of concern. They invented Catastrophism (which had a sequence of catastrophes) and that also failed to conform to the evidence.

In answer to your questions:
1. It doesn't matter: the evidence is that no such flood happened.
2.No, they do not.
3. Supporting evidence? Remember that most rocks have water in them (as part of the crystals), but there are no large bodies of water beneath the continents.
4. Etc.

 

[viole]

LOL what makes you think that scientists have a clue what happened billions of years ago? No one was around to document anything so they fill in the blanks with imagination and guesses.

There were no goat herders who wrote a single word of scripture as far as I know......did the scientists imagine that too?

Well, I told you. They wrote, as you said, that water and planet were there from the beginning. Which is, given the evidence, not short of writing that the earth is flat. Which they probably believed too. Only scientific illiterates can take anything from the Bible as factual.

Which, if you do not believe that, entails that you do not accept astrophysics either. And you do not accept cosmology either. We know you do not accept evolution either. I guess neurobiology is also a no-go. I wonder about geology (which entails that a recent global flood is a joke).

What do you accept, then? There is not much left.

You remind me of that guy who hears on his car's radio "warning!!! there is a car on the NJ turnpike driving in the wrong direction!" and thinks "one? they must be thousands!!".

Ciao

- viole

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Makes the book, what? You didn't finish your sentence.

You're correct. I didn't finish the sentence. My purpose was to point out that if some or all of scripture was authored by man, then those words are of far less value than those of an omniscient god. I'm happy to consider anybody's arguments, but generally not interested in their commands

if anything speaks to you in such a way that it inspires good in you, then it is the voice of God

I can't agree with that. Other explanations seem possible to me.

I am talking about "Spirit breathed" inspiration

As in Holy Spirit? That's a religious belief that I don't hold.

BTW, I'm currently using Studio One 3.5 as my DAW, with a Presonus 1818VSL and a Behringer ADA8200 expansion for a full 16 inputs, most of which are currently filled. I play about a dozen different instruments, with piano being my main go-to instrument.

That's all over my head until the last sentence. I dabbled in the technology in the nineties - MIDI, sequencers, composition software, and multitrack recorders. But in the end, it was just the drum machine and a guitar effects device on the floor in front of me.

Are lilies "Flawless and Infallible and Authoritative"?

No, but I don't look to them for advice on living, so that's not important.

It's amazing to hear a skeptic/materialist who "only believes what they can see/test" make declarative, absolute statements, about ancient events. Were you there or was there a time machine involved in your inductive observations?

We don't always need to see an event to know that it did or did not occur. I'm pretty sure that one day in the past, you were born and took you're first breath. No, I didn't observe it, but I still know it for a fact.

Or perhaps you'd like to dispute that claim.

 

[Windwalker]

You're correct. I didn't finish the sentence. My purpose was to point out that if some or all of scripture was authored by man, then those words are of far less value than those of an omniscient god. I'm happy to consider anybody's arguments, but generally not interested in their commands

Okay. But what diminishes the truth of it coming from God if it comes through a faulted man? Why can't Spirit, or God, or whatever you want to call it, still speak Truth to the heart, without this artificially imposed condition that it meet somebody's idea of "perfection"? Can you not hear God in the breeze? Can you not hear it in the flawed person who shines God's Love through their imperfect soul?

Aren't you looking for the Truth of God to guide you? It sounds like you want to be told what to do by a clearly defined line that you can trust? That's not living by God. That's not knowing the Truth. One is guided by listening to that inner voice, not an external command through some mental idea of perfection, which does not exist. God is Perfect, but through the imperfect, such as the lilies of the field.

I can't agree with that. Other explanations seem possible to me.

What else compels the soul to live for God? The devil? Some dude named Frank?

As in Holy Spirit? That's a religious belief that I don't hold.

Inspiration means Divine breath.

The sense evolution seems to be from "breathe into" to "infuse animation or influence," thus "affect, rouse, guide or control," especially by divine influence. Inspire (v.) in Middle English also was used to mean "breath or put life or spirit into the human body; impart reason to a human soul."

inspiration | Origin and meaning of inspiration by Online Etymology Dictionary​

If Divine Breath is not the Holy Spirit, I'm not sure what you call that. I didn't use that word originally, but it is a good one to use, if you wish.

That's all over my head until the last sentence. I dabbled in the technology in the nineties - MIDI, sequencers, composition software, and multitrack recorders. But in the end, it was just the drum machine and a guitar effects device on the floor in front of me.

Have you played around with the digital loopers with a guitar? I've always wanted to play around with those, but the majority of what I do is through midi. Who knows, if I see one used somewhere. I've got a '77 Strat I could have some fun with, plus a few other instruments I could mic, like my bamboo flutes, my old trombone, some various other exotic instruments, and such. I could just run the output into my DAW through the Presonus analog ins. Yeah, hmmm...... Oh hell, I'm talking myself into it!

No, but I don't look to them for advice on living, so that's not important.

That is very curious statement from you. You said you take advice from the Bible, right? That you don't want to listen to any else, like you would say the teachings of Jesus? It was HIS advice you look to them for living! Are you unfamiliar with the passage? My Lord....

Therefore I say unto you, Be not anxious for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than the food, and the body than the raiment? Behold the birds of the heaven, that they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; and your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are not ye of much more value than they? And which of you by being anxious can add one cubit unto the measure of his life? And why are ye anxious concerning raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: yet I say unto you, that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if God doth so clothe the grass of the field, which to-day is, and to-morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith? Be not therefore anxious, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
​

Thank you lilies for showing me the way, for your advice on living, as Jesus told us to consider from you as our teachers; learning from you how to live a beautiful, spiritual-filled life without needing to have external authorities to tell you what God is, while you know simply from the inside, naturally, and without effort, without worry, without toil, without concern. Oh beautiful lilies, you teach God's Word to us all, through your simple Beauty. Amen.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I'm not being difficult. There is no such thing as the "Hypothesis Method". That is a fact. Why are you refusing to say you were wrong? The difficulty is yours, most apparently.


Please explain how you would apply the Scientific Method to the Bible? I'm very well-versed in scripture, and I fail to see how applying the Scientific Method to it has any value whatsoever. Can you give me one example that comes into your mind? Where do you start with a hypothesis, then come up with a series of tests, run the experiments, take notes, then detail you research for other qualified peers to run the same set of tests and compare notes. Please present your research papers for peer review, if you think that method is applicable to God.

Sounds from your post like I need to apologize for talking in lay terms. Sounds also like you will accept neither the love of Christ nor my friendship nor the love of true facts without my research papers for peer review...

...Of course, you couldn't have know I leave for a language conference tomorrow where I'm chairing two sessions, and delivering one of my papers. Sigh.

When I say the "hypothesis method" I refer to how I was taught as a child to use logic, which I apply to Bible and non-Bible claims of all kinds, and at most times:

1) Assume X is true aka "innocent until proven guilty" aka "being open minded" aka "being unafraid of what skeptics believe or what the Bible teaches"
2) Predict what Y(s) will result from X being true
3) Test, observe, hypothesize again as needed--be open-minded, reframe as needed

As for a Bible test to start with,

Jesus says to tithe and receive exactly what is needed on life necessities. God has come through hundreds, looks like perhaps thousands, of times, for me on finances, via tithes and offerings, exactly as promised, and exactly as He says TO TEST HIM regarding tithes and offerings.

a) Don't lecture me on magical thinking or etc. please--I used to be a data analyst for a CFP, and I've taught many classes on finances for different size groups--I even outlined a book on finances for a major publishing house--I understand how finance works and I'm testifying to you that God has my back!

b) I dare you to test God in this way--inexplicably, the more people give away without hope of repayment, the more the money returns to them (if they are giving biblically, to the church/evangelical outreach, etc.) - this is impossible per "finance"!

Thanks.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Events in the past have effects that last until today. A global flood would be dramatic enough that the evidence would be absolutely obvious. No time machine is required--just basic facts.

Remember that the original investigators of much of this material were Christians who were *looking* for evidence to support the flood myth. They didn't find it and that caused a lot of concern. They invented Catastrophism (which had a sequence of catastrophes) and that also failed to conform to the evidence.

In answer to your questions:
1. It doesn't matter: the evidence is that no such flood happened.
2.No, they do not.
3. Supporting evidence? Remember that most rocks have water in them (as part of the crystals), but there are no large bodies of water beneath the continents.
4. Etc.

Instead of posting rhetoricals like your point 3 above, why not ASK?

"Supporting evidence?" Mount Everest has MARINE FOSSILS near its summit. There is evidence for vertical lifting of the mountains and vertical dropping of sea beds that explain things like sedimentary deposits and why the ark came to rest in Genesis on a mountain instead of being washed out to sea by receding flood waters--and why present sea levels do not account for covering the Earth with water.

I ask every day to test my assumptions and presuppositions. I know many of the Flood refutations because I read both sides. Your post shows you care little about anything creationists say, presuming us all some kind of pseudoscience worshipers.

Why do you respond to me if you neither read what creation SCIENTISTS have to say nor ask me questions?

 

[BilliardsBall]

You're correct. I didn't finish the sentence. My purpose was to point out that if some or all of scripture was authored by man, then those words are of far less value than those of an omniscient god. I'm happy to consider anybody's arguments, but generally not interested in their commands



I can't agree with that. Other explanations seem possible to me.



As in Holy Spirit? That's a religious belief that I don't hold.



That's all over my head until the last sentence. I dabbled in the technology in the nineties - MIDI, sequencers, composition software, and multitrack recorders. But in the end, it was just the drum machine and a guitar effects device on the floor in front of me.



No, but I don't look to them for advice on living, so that's not important.



We don't always need to see an event to know that it did or did not occur. I'm pretty sure that one day in the past, you were born and took you're first breath. No, I didn't observe it, but I still know it for a fact.

Or perhaps you'd like to dispute that claim.

Well, I agree. We don't always need to see an event to know it occurred or didn't, and usually, we are taking this methodology: read or hear a reliable witness, and trust that witness. For example, I was born after the Shoah, but believe those who testify the Holocaust happened and not Holocaust deniers. I trust the writers of the Bible, they read to me as honest witnesses, plus I can verify their claims outside the Bible, using:

1) archaeology
2) history
3) Bible tests, like tithing
4) seeing life changes
5) Etc. etc.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

But let's assume for a minute that the thoughts are "infallible" and "authoritative". How is it in your mind that your understanding then there will be the same? You can have 500 people all reading the same source material, and the end result will be 500 individualized interpretations of it. So a claim of an "authoritative and infallible" source, means nothing at all. No one person has an infallible and authoritative interpretation.

How many interpretations do you think are possible of, "You can have 500 people all reading the same source material, and the end result will be 500 individualized interpretations of it"

You seem to be saying that if the reader is apt to misunderstand the words, that it doesn't matter who wrote them. I'm saying the opposite. Regarding any limitations in understanding, that's really not an issue since what I'm discussing is the source of scripture. There's a considerable difference between the words of an omniscient god and those of mortal human beings from centuries and millennia past. As I said, I see a clear indication of the presence of human authors. If an omniscient author wrote a book, it would have written a different kind of book :

"Imagine how spectacular a book would be if it were authored by a deity who created the universe. Yet there isn't a sentence in any holy book today that couldn't have been written by someone from the first century, and anyone today could easily improve on any of the holy books that people still follow. If a deity exists, it would be far more intelligent that anybody who has ever lived. So what does that say when anyone can improve on the Bible and Qur'an, but very few can improve on a book by Stephen Hawking?" - anon​

I also like this from R. G. Ingersoll on the subject of what a such a book of divine origin would be like:

It should be a book that no man -- no number of men -- could produce.

It should contain the perfection of philosophy.

It should perfectly accord with every fact in nature.

There should be no mistakes in astronomy, geology, or as to any subject or science.

Its morality should be the highest, the purest.

Its laws and regulations for the control of conduct should be just, wise, perfect, and perfectly adapted to the accomplishment of the ends desired.

It should contain nothing calculated to make man cruel, revengeful, vindictive or infamous.

It should be filled with intelligence, justice, purity, honesty, mercy and the spirit of liberty.

It should be opposed to strife and war, to slavery and lust, to ignorance, credulity and superstition.

It should develop the brain and civilize the heart.

It should satisfy the heart and brain of the best and wisest. ​

So, no, I do not consider the Bible authoritative - just a collection of ideas and suggestions appropriate for consideration. It's words should be subject to critical thinking, not automatically accepted as true or wise.

And understanding plain language isn't as difficult as you imply. If a god has moral imperatives for my life, it ought to be able to express them unambiguously.

 

[Polymath257]

Instead of posting rhetoricals like your point 3 above, why not ASK?

"Supporting evidence?" Mount Everest has MARINE FOSSILS near its summit. There is evidence for vertical lifting of the mountains and vertical dropping of sea beds that explain things like sedimentary deposits and why the ark came to rest in Genesis on a mountain instead of being washed out to sea by receding flood waters--and why present sea levels do not account for covering the Earth with water.

I ask every day to test my assumptions and presuppositions. I know many of the Flood refutations because I read both sides. Your post shows you care little about anything creationists say, presuming us all some kind of pseudoscience worshipers.

Why do you respond to me if you neither read what creation SCIENTISTS have to say nor ask me questions?

I have read what creationists say. That is why I reject such stuff. There are marine fossils on the top *and in the mountain itself* because the mountain was pushed up by the collision of the Indian subcontinent. That is NOT evidence of a global flood. You can even track the movement of the subcontinent across the Indian ocean if you look at scans of that ocean.

BTW, creationists are not true scientists: they assume their conclusion and look for evidence to support it, as opposed to looking first at the evidence and *then* figuring out what is required to explain it.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, I agree. We don't always need to see an event to know it occurred or didn't, and usually, we are taking this methodology: read or hear a reliable witness, and trust that witness. For example, I was born after the Shoah, but believe those who testify the Holocaust happened and not Holocaust deniers. I trust the writers of the Bible, they read to me as honest witnesses, plus I can verify their claims outside the Bible, using:

1) archaeology
2) history
3) Bible tests, like tithing
4) seeing life changes
5) Etc. etc.

Witness accounts are some of the *least* reliable sources of information. Much better are archeological remains. That means you *don't* have to take the word of a biased source for all of your information.

 

[Polymath257]

Sounds from your post like I need to apologize for talking in lay terms. Sounds also like you will accept neither the love of Christ nor my friendship nor the love of true facts without my research papers for peer review...

...Of course, you couldn't have know I leave for a language conference tomorrow where I'm chairing two sessions, and delivering one of my papers. Sigh.

When I say the "hypothesis method" I refer to how I was taught as a child to use logic, which I apply to Bible and non-Bible claims of all kinds, and at most times:

1) Assume X is true aka "innocent until proven guilty" aka "being open minded" aka "being unafraid of what skeptics believe or what the Bible teaches"
2) Predict what Y(s) will result from X being true
3) Test, observe, hypothesize again as needed--be open-minded, reframe as needed

As for a Bible test to start with,

Jesus says to tithe and receive exactly what is needed on life necessities. God has come through hundreds, looks like perhaps thousands, of times, for me on finances, via tithes and offerings, exactly as promised, and exactly as He says TO TEST HIM regarding tithes and offerings.

a) Don't lecture me on magical thinking or etc. please--I used to be a data analyst for a CFP, and I've taught many classes on finances for different size groups--I even outlined a book on finances for a major publishing house--I understand how finance works and I'm testifying to you that God has my back!

b) I dare you to test God in this way--inexplicably, the more people give away without hope of repayment, the more the money returns to them (if they are giving biblically, to the church/evangelical outreach, etc.) - this is impossible per "finance"!

Thanks.

What alternative explanations have you investigated and how did you distinguish those alternatives from the one you adopted?

One of the aspects of actual science is attempting to detect the limits of a hypothesis: trying to find out where it is false and testing situations specifically to detect such falsehoods.

 

[ecco]

I've often wondered, did Moses witness Cain killing Abel?
I've often wondered, did Moses witness Noah building the Ark?

 

[Milton Platt]

But you needed intelligence to use the rock in that way. A rock is just a rock until someone with intelligence finds a use for them.

You did not ask if I had intelligence. You asked if I had used an object not made by someone. Don’t try to redirect the conversation. I answered your specific question.

Observing animals climbing trees would again require observation and intelligence to imitate their actions to see vines as ladders. No?

I did not mention animals at all. Further, see answer above.


You take for granted that there is water in the stream to begin with. Where did it come from? How does the water cycle just happen to exist? Every drop of water on planet earth is recycled within our atmosphere. Water covers most of our planet, yet it is undrinkable for the majority of land dwellers. The fact that a system exists to take moisture from the oceans, store it in clouds and drop it over land to provide vital water for all of us who live here....Is that just another fortunate fluke?

None of this relevant to the question you posed.

But to address your question:

The water cycle does not exist because we live here. We live here because the water cycle, along with other natural cycles and attributes of earth constitute the environment we evolved within.



What is snow? How do ice crystals form? Do snowflakes have to be beautiful and so incredibly diverse in form? No one knew how amazing they were until humans discovered how to photograph them. Can you ski on snow without using something designed by humans to facilitate it? Did skis and snowboards just evolve with no intelligence directing their design?

Snow is crystalized water vapor. Snowflakes have to be in their forms because of physical laws that dictate the formation of crystals. Read a science book, for goodness sake. Given the molecular makeup of water, it is a given. That you personally find beauty in them is subjective.



Can complex information just appear out of nowhere? Or is complex information the product of intelligence? Can it be divulged to others without a means to communicate it, along with the means to understand it?
This word "natural" covers up a whole lot of 'improbability' IMO.
What does "natural" really mean?

Please provide an example of a simple thing and define at what level something becomes complex instead of simple.

Complex information can be the product of intelligence, of course. But can you demonstrate that it must be by necessity? Define what you mean by complex information and give some examples of simple information and explain the difference between the two.



"Processes that govern nature" were always there.....the Creator put them all in place so that "nature" would take care of itself. Humans identified them and then virtually took credit for the intelligence need to understand them. But that was something the Creator provided as well. The human brain....more amazing and incredibly well designed than any man made computer....I cannot see how it could possibly be the product of "natural" undirected forces.

Provide evidence that a creator created the laws of nature, instead of just giving my your opinion.
As someone once said, “ Without data, you’re just another a**hole with an opinion”.

Your own ignorance is not evidence of a creator, sorry.



But doesn't it highlight that all components must be individually designed and made according to a pre-determined design. Doesn't it also demonstrate that 'assembly' requires precise placement of each component in the overall design for it to be beneficial? How many complex integrated systems do you know of that required no designer and the precise placement of its components? This is just basic common sense IMO.

No. I see a narural world following natural processes, with mixed results varying from beautiful to catastrophic.



How many "improbable" things coming together, supposedly 'undirected' makes a person deny the need for intelligent co-ordination of the processes? Why do people fight the idea of an intelligent designer? Is it a pride thing? I understand the need to fight YEC (which I consider to be unintelligent)..... but the existence of an Intelligent Designer is not YEC.....to us, it is something completely different, not denying science but showing how the Creator of science did what he did in an intelligent way. It seems to me that denial on this level is science's own version of YEC. It also defies logic

Improbable things happen all the time.

Nobody is fighting your god assertion. They are simply not willing to believe something for which you have been unable to provide convincing evidence. Stop pointing out natural phenomena and asserting a creatot did it. Produce the creator, or direct testable evidence of the creator itself.

No, it does not defy logic to withold belief in unfounded assertions. It defies logic to believe in something without sufficient evidence.

It would be (is

.

 

[Deeje]

Improbable things happen all the time.

Was that a scientific statement or just your own opinion?

Nobody is fighting your god assertion. They are simply not willing to believe something for which you have been unable to provide convincing evidence.

I have yet to see a shred of convincing evidence for macro-evolution.....so we are at an impasse....I actually have more "evidence" for an intelligent Creator than you have for a long, drawn out evolutionary process.....its a con of monumental proportions as I see it. I hear about all this "overwhelming evidence" for evolution and then find out that the only thing overwhelming about it is the volume not the content.....there is not a single thing that science presents for organic evolution that can be substantiated. But you knew that...right?

Stop pointing out natural phenomena and asserting a creatot did it. Produce the creator, or direct testable evidence of the creator itself.

You produce proof that evolution ever happened. Give us the clear unequivocal proof that dinosaurs evolved from amoebas. Show us how it all happened and while you're at it perhaps you could tell us how life originated?

No, it does not defy logic to withold belief in unfounded assertions. It defies logic to believe in something without sufficient evidence.

Then you will excuse me for not believing a word that science says about how life evolved over all those millions of years......? They believe without sufficient evidence.....perhaps we need to define the word, "sufficient"?