The Miracle of Water.

[ecco]

Plus, the Ark was Not boat shaped. The Ark did Not have to be steered anywhere but just float.

And with no ability to steer and with no propulsion it would have capsized with the first 200 foot wave that hit it.

And with no ability to steer and with no propulsion it would have opened at the seams with the first 200 foot wave that hit it.

Which happened first? It really doesn't matter.

 

[ecco]

That is incorrect. Atheism adheres to the rational view that there are no gods.

Do you believe there are gods?

Atheism can Not prove there is No God, thus it is the 'exercise of faith' in the non-existence of God or gods.

Theists love to throw around the word "prove". Ya kaint prove evilution. Ya kaint prove there aint no God. Yadda yadda yadda.

When you prove that God didn't created everything Last Thursday, then I will accept the "prove" challenge.

Until then, I will go with evidence. The evidence is that all gods are the creation of man's imaginings. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd like to see it.

Moses was ' god ' to Pharaoh - Exodus 7th chapter.
The judges of Psalms 82 were human judges referred to as ' gods ' because they were to judge by using God's standards in which to base or make their judgements of what was right or wrong.
Even Satan is referred to as the ' god ' of this world of badness as per 2 Corinthians 4:4.
Some people's ' god ' is their belly as per Philippians 3:19.
So, to me there are ' gods', and there is the only living God, the God of the Bible.- Revelation 4:11.

I asked: Do you believe there are gods? If you are saying that Moses was a god? Do you believe that Satan is a god? Can you ever just try to answer a question without ducking and dodging.

 

[ecco]

The Bible explains why we don't function at a peak level, opening up opportunities for cancer cells to invade and other illnesses to take over the body.

Where does the bible say that? Is it before or after the part about not eating pork and lobster. Where does the bible say anything about cancer?

Everything that contributes to our health has been tampered with. Our water is full of chemicals...our food is laced with chemical pesticides and artificial fertilizers.....our air is polluted and our lifestyle contributes little to our national health.

Where does the bible say anything about chemicals or pesticides or fertilizers or polluted air?

 

[ecco]

Or watch a hurricane self-organize into a structure of wind and water that can can channel energy and migrate for days. No intelligence is involved in the organizing of either of these structures.

Pat Robertson would disagree with you. Pat Robertson would tell you that, if enough people prayed, God would direct the hurricane to hit Disney when they were having a Gay Pride day.

 

[lioncub1503]

There are other possibilities. I think that the most likely scenario is that our universe was spawned by an eternal multiverse.

Faith isn't an option for the rational skeptic. Why? Faith clearly cannot be a path to knowledge if any idea and its polar opposite can both be assumed to be true by faith, when clearly one or both are wrong. A better method for determining what is true about reality is to examine it (empiricism). That's how we learned about the amazing properties of water, not by faith.

Ok, but putting faith in the Big Bang is what you are doing because there is no solid proof, only ideas and beliefs at what could have occured. And yes, I agree, a much better way is to examine things. The bible tells us not to blindly put faith in things, other things or itself. Therefore, I have examined all the evidence and I have come to the aware conclusion that there is a divine being, not just choosing this because I like the idea of it or because it fits in with my agenda. Many people would like to believe thattheir is no God so they can just do whatever they want, however in my opinion this is blind faith. But, if someone (like yourself, I see) who have evaluated the information and come to a conclusion this is fine, as long as they have seen all the information.

The multiverse hypothesis circumvents that issue by saying that our universe came from a timeless and eternal multiverse, not out of nothing.

It seems to me that because the universe exists, that either it or something else that served as its source has always existed or came into being from nothing. These are both counterintuitive ideas - time stretching infinitely into the past or something bootstrapping itself into existence from nothing. Unless I've overlooked a third possibility, it seems that we are forced to accept that something that seems impossible is the case.

We believe that God had no beginning, so at least here we are sort of on the same page. Could it be a creator that you have overlooked?
The thing with this idea, unlike with God, their is absolutely no proof for it.

The Bible got almost none of it right. Make a list of features of the genesis creation account, and compare and contrast that with an analogous list of the features of the standard model of Big Bang cosmology, and you'll find striking differences that cannot be reconciled.

Big Bang, Big Bang...that is like me saying ‘big bang is proved completely incorrect because the bible is different!’. You have not given me any solid proof of the Big Bang yet.
However, if you have a look at the Genesis account and what science actually has to say you will find it quite accurate, even when at that time people had different ideas.

Can you please give me some examples of when the Genesis account is proved wrong by science? Because I don’t see any.

Or, as the Bible also says, they thought that the earth was flat, immobile, set on four pillars, and encased in a perforated dome that contained the stars and through which the waters above the sky fell as rain.

Incidentally, when you say that something in the Bible was eventually proved correct, you're tacitly elevating science to the role of arbiter of truth. Until science demonstrates that something is the case, scripture on the same topic remains an unsupported claim, much of which has already been contradicted

I do not quite get what point you are trying to make/what you are saying here. What I am saying is that the bible is scientifically accurate, however people often fail to see this, often disclaiming the bible with untrue “science” (such as the ideas in ancient medical times) and it is often many centuries afterward that science agrees with the bible. In this age of technological advancement, people know a lot more about the Earth, and it is only now that the truth is being revealed when it was already there all along, written in an age of darkness when the writers couldn’t possibly have known about it.

How does that not make the earth flat? Circles are flat. The earth is a sphere (or oblate spheroid if you prefer).

Watch a collection of planetesimals of assorted sizes and trajectories self-organize into a regularly rotating and orbiting sphere and act in unison. Or watch a hurricane self-organize into a structure of wind and water that can can channel energy and migrate for days. No intelligence is involved in the organizing of either of these structures.

In my opinion, intelligence was needed to engineer the Earth to automatically do this. The thing is, the matter about the Big Bang isn’t just about intelligence, it is about how the explosion and substances first came to be. When I look at things like this, I wonder how there couldn’t be a creater. When you look at these things, you see what looks like mindless actions, but I see proof of a intelligent designer to create such intricate and amazing things, how could it happen on it’s own?

If something can have existed eternally into the past, then we don't really need that something to be a god.

But that something doesn’t have to be an alternate universe either, so that is getting nowhere.

 

[ecco]

RE: The existence of gods...

Of course not. That is not a matter for scientific investigation.

Why not? Science can compile evidence regarding the origins of the concepts of gods. How and why did the concept of gods begin?

Science can compile evidence regarding the actual existence of gods. If the scripture describing a god is shown to be flawed, then one can come to the conclusion that that god does not exist.

I will grant that finding evidence invalidating the actual existence of the God who Created Everything Last Thursday is impossible. However, in that case, we can go back to evaluating the findings of the origins of god myths.

 

[nPeace]

God is very important in these examples. An artist to her favorite art to me is god to his favorite creation to you. Both have the same concepts. l'll take out the word god.

Yes. But, remember, if we arent using this as an analogy, this question is a given yes but doesnt mean anything beyond the answer. What connection are you making if not explaining how you view god to his art?

Suppose I ask, why doesn't it mean anything beyond the fact that 1. by studying the art piece, there are certain details that can portray the artist's feeling, interests, etc. and 2. I can tell that the art piece was done by someone, and therefore there is an artist?

This goes with the god-association above. Unles you use god, the questions are isolated.

My focus isnt on the artist, though. I dont really look into an artist life because of her art. I just know there is an artist (as per our human logic), and that knowledge, although logical, doesnt have much affect on me as the actual art does.

For sure, we are all different. We don't all have the same thoughts and feelings, and in a divided world like this, it's easier to keep to one's self, and not be too fussy about people's lives. I understand that.
Also, you being an artist, I can understand why you might not be too interested in other artists through their work. We are different.

I like meeting people, and if I visited an art exhibition, and say, noticed that the art work of a particular artist always seemed to reflect sadness. That would get me interested in meeting that person, because, the personally of the artist seems to be coming through in their art.. and I assume it's one of sadness.

The same applies to a particular artist whose paintings are always pastel shades, and soft in color, containing mainly flowers, and perhaps a few portraits, and girls in flowery dresses and hats, butterflies in a meadow, for example.
I think I would want to meet that person, because their work reflects peace, and calmness, and they are probably female... probably.

For example, when I write poetry and people it they think I am talking about myself. Most of the time I am not. The only few things they can pick up from me is the pattern in most my poems, though Im changing up recently but weirdly natural turn. They may assume its about me because I write about specific topics all the time.

What I like is they can see the nature of the poem as a reflection of their own self. For example, I let my therapist read a religious poem. Her mind went directly to god even though thats not the intent. But, I was glad because in my art, people can see different parts of themselves thats beyond one artist work. Its not monotheist-not about myself-but pantheist-about all as all and in all. A reflection of life.

Logically, it would be three. Though, like the first part of the post, if its not an analogy, what are you saying?

Do you get that as an intuition? Gut feeling?

Above, I said I dont get that. To me, is the art itself. I dont have an "I need to meet the artist" mentality. We have book festivals here all the time with varous authors coming to sign books. I dont have that sign-my-book point of view. Its highly prized all over the world from british queens and world politics, media star struck people, kissing popes, laying face down bowing to jesus, and so forth. Even meditating in front a Buddhist Statue bothers me.

As I said, people are different.
Poems are different too.
Depending on how the poem is written, people may not assume that the poet is writing about themselves, unless they assume that's what poetry is about.

Why I pick number 3? It's logical, and I don't know that the others are possible.

Since we added god to the picture now, its ideal to say thank you to the artist. When you dont see the art as a reflection of the artist but a reflection of all potraded in the art, there is no separation between the artist and art and life.

I think people thank artists when they are moved by appreciation for their work, and how it affects them.
Especially if the work was given to them, they feel gratitude.
They may also want others to know about the artists and his abilities, and if the work is one that brings a sense of satisfaction and inner peace, they will surely tell all their friends and loved ones, that they to can have the same experience.
Even better if the artist is giving away his work for a small price.

I get what you are saying on earth, but on earth, we can actually talk to the artist and know his signature without using faith to put two and two. God doesnt work that way.

How would you know the artist's signature, unless you become familiar with them and their signature?
How do you know God does not work that way? What's your proof?

You would have to explain how the art actually defines gods existence first and then talk about how much you love the art in reflection of the artist.

This is a very good point.
First, go back to my earlier explanation.
Why I pick number 3? It's logical, and I don't know that the others are possible.
When I look at a painting, I can come to what I think are both reasonable and logical conclusions... as well as sensible.
Example:

Spoiler: Workbook A

Spoiler: Workbook B

Consider Workbook A.
What are the possible conclusions I can arrive at?
For me, I could either conclude that someone, or something caused these effects, either with purpose, or without purpose - random, if you will, and without deliberation.

Consider Workbook B
What are the possible conclusions I can arrive at?
For me, I could either conclude that someone, or something caused these effects, but with purpose, and deliberately. As far as I know, for something to be done deliberately, and with purpose, requires forethought, and this can only be done with a mind - intelligence.
I don't know of any other possible way. Do you?

In other words: we need to know which artist you are speaking of when you speak of her art. We cant know just by looking at it since the appreciation is yours not universal. Not all people like art.

Again, good point.
When you do your work, you say that you copyright it, obviously because you are able to identify it as yours, in case anyone wants to, you know...
You might also put your signature.
When anyone that knows you, sees your signature, they know it was done by you.

Suppose though that you didn't copyright, or sign your work... Or suppose someone, stole an art piece, removed your signature, and did a few retouches, and adjustments to your painting, could your claiming the painting is yours, be validated?
You'd need some witnesses, or else it's lost. Right?

I said earlier, God's signature and copyright is the scriptures.
You see, he claims ownership of the universe - he claims the work as his.
The scriptures are the oldest writings with this claim.
Of course there is a lot of forging going on, and people are trying to claim that the work is not God's, but hey - that's life. They will be crooks until their time is up.

Those who know God's signature, know his work, and God's has witnesses that testify that he did it. It is written in scripture.
Yeah. I know. Many doubt those witnesses, but hey. So what.
There will be those who believe the witnesses, and those who don't.

The picture, yes. I go walking each morning and taken in the scenary apart from my immediate environment. Virginia has alot of mountains. I dont think of an creator when I see them though.

Right. The signature is questioned.

To those who do have a connection to "there has to be an artist I must meet because I like this creation", yes. Probably most religious think this way.

What about appreciating the art as art?

I mean, thats probably how the artist wants you to appreciate his work rather than himself. He is the art, if you like. If the artist were alive, then yeah, I can see it. In god comparision, how do you say thank you to god if god is not his art?

What exactly are you thanking?

I get what you are saying in general. You have the art, so logicaly there is an artist. Why not thank the artist.

If you like my art, your gratitude to me is how you see my art within yourself-so its your art not mine. I just had the tools.

Or a step further, why separate the artist from the art and yourself?

I feel you can learn more about the artist by how the art affects you. Then, as you know more about the art, you see its not special in regards to putting the artist on a pedalstool. You see it as yourself as if you are the artist.

At least thats how I see paintings and read poetry. Its a reflection of all.

I think the difference between the art humans do, and the art of the creator, is vastly different.
Whereas we enjoy the beauty of art work, the art of nature is more than beauty. It's life; meaning and purpose; fulfillment and satisfaction; peace; joy; hope; love... and we can go on.
That's why @Unveiled Artist, from the cradle to the grave, we seek answers.
More than that, we seek the things I just mentioned, but we seek more than these, life.
For without life, where is love? Where is beauty.

If scientists were today able to find longevity, about 90 percent of people would want it, but the again, not - maybe only if they were Superman - able to battle crime, cyclones, tornadoes... earthquakes???

Maybe they need more superpowers, to battle any disease, poverty, death. That's right. Superman isn't immortal, is he.

Imo @Unveiled Artist, we need God, and the promises in the scriptures are coming true, so I am confident he will fulfill his promise at Revelation 21:3, 4.

 

[Windwalker]

RE: The existence of gods...

Why not? Science can compile evidence regarding the origins of the concepts of gods. How and why did the concept of gods begin?

They can also compile the origins of the concepts of the natural world in human history. Where did our concepts of nature begin? This is a study of human conceptions about reality, be that the experience of nature, or of the spiritual. You will find an evolving understanding, commensurate with human evolution seen through culture and language and art.

But this is not the same thing as investigating God. Science cannot do that, because it is a subjective investigation. Science studies objects, not the interiors of human experience. That's why the empric-analytic sciences are not the right tool.

Science can compile evidence regarding the actual existence of gods. If the scripture describing a god is shown to be flawed, then one can come to the conclusion that that god does not exist.

Why? How is that the logical conclusion? If scriptures are shown to be flawed, this concludes all spiritual experiences of humans throughout the millennia should be discounted? How? Why? Please explain the logic of this to me.

FYI, I absolutely see the flaws of scripture, I know a great deal about how it was created, and it's no magical book dropped from the sky flawless and fit for fundamentalists to read and bash each other over the head with. Yet, in light of all that, I completely accept the reality of the Divine. So, I'm really not sure how this works in your mind that that disproves anything?

I will grant that finding evidence invalidating the actual existence of the God who Created Everything Last Thursday is impossible. However, in that case, we can go back to evaluating the findings of the origins of god myths.

Again, studying that doesn't say anything about God be real or not. People's ideas of God begin in primitive understandings, but they grow and evolve over time. You can see the exact same thing today in watching a child's understanding mature and blossom into deeper understanding of truth, be that about life in general, or in spiritual matters concerning the existence of a Divine Reality.

I think the problem here it twofold. First, you think that God is nothing more that people's ideas and concepts, and fail to recognize that mystical experience is the core of most religious beginnings (even though that gets lost in time). Secondly, you probably imagine that God is that anthropomorphic deity called Jehovah by the ancient Jews.

There are other understandings that are a bit more compatible with modern knowledge of the natural world through science. It seems in finding fault with earlier, more primitive beliefs, it knocks God off the throne out of all human experience for you, since that is the only idea of God you understand. This is not how real science works.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I was trying to get you to take your mind off the gd issue, so that you would look at this with an open mind.
We know how easy it for us to fit our ideas into situations, and not view things with an open mind, because our thoughts are racing ahead in the direction we are focused.

See, for example...

Suppose I ask, why doesn't it mean anything beyond the fact that 1. by studying the art piece, there are certain details that can portray the artist's feeling, interests, etc. and 2. I can tell that the art piece was done by someone, and therefore there is an artist?


For sure, we are all different. We don't all have the same thoughts and feelings, and in a divided world like this, it's easier to keep to one's self, and not be too fussy about people's lives. I understand that.
Also, you being an artist, I can understand why you might not be too interested in other artists through their work. We are different.

I like meeting people, and if I visited an art exhibition, and say, noticed that the art work of a particular artist always seemed to reflect sadness. That would get me interested in meeting that person, because, the personally of the artist seems to be coming through in their art.. and I assume it's one of sadness.

The same applies to a particular artist whose paintings are always pastel shades, and soft in color, containing mainly flowers, and perhaps a few portraits, and girls in flowery dresses and hats, butterflies in a meadow, for example.
I think I would want to meet that person, because their work reflects peace, and calmness, and they are probably female... probably.

As I said, people are different.
Poems are different too.
Depending on how the poem is written, people may not assume that the poet is writing about themselves, unless they assume that's what poetry is about.

Why I pick number 3? It's logical, and I don't know that the others are possible.


I think people thank artists when they are moved by appreciation for their work, and how it affects them.
Especially if the work was given to them, they feel gratitude.
They may also want others to know about the artists and his abilities, and if the work is one that brings a sense of satisfaction and inner peace, they will surely tell all their friends and loved ones, that they to can have the same experience.
Even better if the artist is giving away his work for a small price.


How would you know the artist's signature, unless you become familiar with them and their signature?
How do you know God does not work that way? What's your proof?


This is a very good point.
First, go back to my earlier explanation.
Why I pick number 3? It's logical, and I don't know that the others are possible.
When I look at a painting, I can come to what I think are both reasonable and logical conclusions... as well as sensible.
Example:

Spoiler: Workbook A

Spoiler: Workbook B

Consider Workbook A.
What are the possible conclusions I can arrive at?
For me, I could either conclude that someone, or something caused these effects, either with purpose, or without purpose - random, it you will, and without deliberation.

Consider Workbook B
What are the possible conclusions I can arrive at?
For me, I could either conclude that someone, or something caused these effects, but with purpose, and deliberately. As far as I know, for something to be done deliberately, and with purpose, requires forethought, and this can only be done with a mind - intelligence.
I don't know of any other possible way. Do you?


Again, good point.
When you do your work, you say that you copyright it, obviously because you are able to identify it as yours, in case anyone wants to, you know...
You might also put your signature.
When anyone that knows you, sees your signature, they know it was done by you.

Suppose though that you didn't copyright, or sign your work... Or suppose someone, stole an art piece, removed your signature, and did a few retouches, and adjustments to your painting, could your claiming the painting is yours, be validated?
You'd need some witnesses, or else it's lost. Right?

I said earlier, God's signature and copyright is the scriptures.
You see, he claims ownership of the universe - he claims the work as his.
The scriptures are the oldest writings with this claim.
Of course there is a lot of forging going on, and people are trying to claim that the work is not God's, but hey - that's life. They will be crooks until their time is up.

Those who know God's signature, know his work, and God's has witnesses that testify that he did it. It is written in scripture.
Yeah. I know. Many doubt those witnesses, but hey. So what.
There will be those who believe the witnesses, and those who don't.


Right. The signature is questioned.


I think the difference between the art humans do, and the art of the creator, is vastly different.
Whereas we enjoy the beauty of art work, the art of nature is more than beauty. It's life; meaning and purpose; fulfillment and satisfaction; peace; joy; hope; love... and we can go on.
That's why @Unveiled Artist, from the cradle to the grave, we seek answers.
More than that, we seek the things I just mentioned, but we seek more than these, life.
For without life, where is love? Where is beauty.

If scientists were today able to find longevity, about 90 percent of people would want it, but the again, not - maybe only if they were Superman - able to battle crime, cyclones, tornadoes... earthquakes???

Maybe they need more superpowers, to battle any disease, poverty, death. That's right. Superman isn't immortal, is he.

Imo @Unveiled Artist, we need God, and the promises in the scriptures are coming true, so I am confident he will fulfill his promise at Revelation 21:3, 4.

I'll come back. You are criss-crossing with saying dont think about god then now you place god into the equation. Without god, was is the point you are making with how we see art? We can be open minded about a lot of topics, but there is still a theme or the conversation goes off track. Did you want me to see art and artist as creation and god cause if not, are you making the connection between god/artist and creation/art without wanting me to do so?

Im at a loss of your point without it being an analogy that we both can refer to.

 

[nPeace]

I'll come back. You are criss-crossing with saying dont think about god then now you place god into the equation. Without god, was is the point you are making with how we see art? We can be open minded about a lot of topics, but there is still a theme or the conversation goes off track. Did you want me to see art and artist as creation and god cause if not, are you making the connection between god/artist and creation/art without wanting me to do so?

Im at a loss of your point without it being an analogy that we both can refer to.

Sorry about that, I had forgotten that I had allowed for God to be injected in the next post, but I started to make the comment with the previous post in mind.
My error. I will fix it.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Or, as the Bible also says, they thought that the earth was flat, immobile, set on four pillars, and encased in a perforated dome that contained the stars and through which the waters above the sky fell as rain.

As I've asked before: where? What passages?
It mentions the "four corners of the Earth", but then it also says "the circle of the Earth."

The writers were simply taking artistic license, using poetic prose in their descriptions.

Isaac Newton and other thinkers knew this.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Ima do this in parts so it may be splish splash a bit.

For sure, we are all different. We don't all have the same thoughts and feelings, and in a divided world like this, it's easier to keep to one's self, and not be too fussy about people's lives. I understand that.

Also, you being an artist, I can understand why you might not be too interested in other artists through their work. We are different.

Actually, I just dont focus on the artist but their art. I dont see it as negative or off. Its more you know the artist more by his work rather than his biography. If I met the author Natalie Goldberg in her book Writing Down The Bones and told her she is a great author though I never met her, that would be odd. Maybe she has a glimpse Im her fan with her books but its more than that. If I did not read her book, I really dont know much about her. So, I agree with christians, you learn about the artist from her art. My personal approach is her art is her biography.

So, basically, when I go to the museum, Im meeting a bunch of people by their artwork. Its nice to know a lot of them (if they were alive) but on the other hand, I cant speak for all artist but Im sure those who have a passion would want you to see them as a reflection of their creation. In other words, its the other way around.

For me personally, if I published a book, I wouldnt want to have book signings. I know people know more about me by my book (say about airplanes) than my signature.

Im more connected to the art rather than the artist. I dont know why, really. Most people I guess when they have a passion for something they want to know all about it. There is a movie called Drum Line where the main character Miles says, when the band found out he couldnt read sheet music though he is an excellent player. He says to his girlfriend why should he take a class to "do him". It comes natural to him that to study it is less important than playing.

I like meeting people, and if I visited an art exhibition, and say, noticed that the art work of a particular artist always seemed to reflect sadness. That would get me interested in meeting that person, because, the personally of the artist seems to be coming through in their art.. and I assume it's one of sadness.

True. I can see that. I dont know if I would or not. I get uncomfortable around people as it is. I dont like having that star-struck feeling when meeting someone who wrote my favorite book.

Im talking more of the idea of talking to the artist before his art. But I wouldnt brush that person off. I mean, off topic, when I was at Church and people bow to Christ, I did so out of custum and respect. But personally, I wouldnt bow to christ because thats not how I was raised nor by culture to look down to someone. Its always been eye to eye.

In that light, thats why I get alitle uncomfortable. Unless I am their professional peer or their friend, being a star-struck fan just doesnt feel right. More of a personal issue than a moral one.

The same applies to a particular artist whose paintings are always pastel shades, and soft in color, containing mainly flowers, and perhaps a few portraits, and girls in flowery dresses and hats, butterflies in a meadow, for example.

I think I would want to meet that person, because their work reflects peace, and calmness, and they are probably female... probably

I can see that. I usually collect paintings because the painting itself reflects peace in me. I guess, in a religious light, the artist would be thankful. But unlike christianity, Im sure the artist isnt expecting a thank you when you done that more through like his art than shaking his hand.

.....

 

[Unveiled Artist]

As I said, people are different.
Poems are different too.
Depending on how the poem is written, people may not assume that the poet is writing about themselves, unless they assume that's what poetry is about.

Why I pick number 3? It's logical, and I don't know that the others are possible.

I think people thank artists when they are moved by appreciation for their work, and how it affects them.

Especially if the work was given to them, they feel gratitude.
They may also want others to know about the artists and his abilities, and if the work is one that brings a sense of satisfaction and inner peace, they will surely tell all their friends and loved ones, that they to can have the same experience.
Even better if the artist is giving away his work for a small price

I can see that. Im more saying it feels uncomfortable to think of the artist before his art. Every artist is different, of course; but, the consesus I get around other writers is that people appreciate their work as gratitude. Its like if my mother gave me a wraped gift. I open it and see its gold jewelry. Of course saying thank you is appropriate. Though even if we cant say thank you, thank you is actually wearing the jewelry.

The appreciation is how you use the gift fiven. As for words, I wasnt raised where words were a symbol of gratitude. I love words and wish I heard more of them. So, it highly depends on the person. But, probably universally, if someone gives a gift, the appreciation is using it. One persons bow of disrespect is another persons respect to elderly.

How would you know the artist's signature, unless you become familiar with them and their signature? How do you know God does not work that way? What's your proof?

I wouldnt, really. I dont look at signatures, though. I usually can tell the same artist by how they write. Im drawn to their writing style and words they use.

As for god part, thats a two part question for me. Assuming god is a person, I guess you can see it similar if keeping god as a general creator without any religious descriptions. The biblical god has specific definitions and conditions to which he is related to his creation etc. Im more pantheistic. The artist and creation are the same (outside of strict analogy). So when you live as creation you are thanking god.

I understand the idea of thanking the artist for his creation. That hospitality is ideal in many cultures including my own. The difference is the intensity and balance. Christians dont worship their creators creation. So, the reflection isnt balance and the definition is different in context. How I see it, using god-terms, is god is creation. Creation creates itself through recycle and transformation etc (in real life). Bending forms. So, I find it odd to thank an external being or deity when the art or god is right here in front of you.

I have a pantheist mentality on spiritual concepts. I understand the idea of worshiping a deity or saying thank you to the creator but in practice, its more seeing eye to eye with creation as the creator and saying thank you by living and using what I am in gratitude.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Again, good point.
When you do your work, you say that you copyright it, obviously because you are able to identify it as yours, in case anyone wants to, you know...
You might also put your signature.
When anyone that knows you, sees your signature, they know it was done by you.

Suppose though that you didn't copyright, or sign your work... Or suppose someone, stole an art piece, removed your signature, and did a few retouches, and adjustments to your painting, could your claiming the painting is yours, be validated?

You'd need some witnesses, or else it's lost. Right?

True...

I said earlier, God's signature and copyright is the scriptures.
You see, he claims ownership of the universe - he claims the work as his.
The scriptures are the oldest writings with this claim.
Of course there is a lot of forging going on, and people are trying to claim that the work is not God's, but hey - that's life. They will be crooks until their time is up.

I remember asking, without scriptures, if creation speaks of a creation (art to his artist), how do you know this? Is it gut feeling? I mean, we discussed we cant get the artist name and history just by seeing his artwork, how is that different with god and creation?

Those who know God's signature, know his work, and God's has witnesses that testify that he did it. It is written in scripture.
Yeah. I know. Many doubt those witnesses, but hey. So what.
There will be those who believe the witnesses, and those who don't.

This is more bias, though. When I think of a creator, I dont think of anyone particular. Im not familar with the christian god as a deity; so, I assume yes, you can assume that creation has a signature of its creator. It highly depends on the person and how perceives the world and understands it.

Doubting witnesses-that comment takes on a whole new topic. I dont have that mindset that people are blind or misguided or cant see the creator as if the creation has a literal signature idependent on the people in the bible and the people today (regardless the time period) who speak about it. When people were accused for doubting and denial, they were killed. I dont understand that mentality we still have today.

Another unrelated question/comment. Why the futher back in time we go, the more spiritual something is? When was the time broken that now we are less spiritually aware than the person in the same world with the same human parts just in another era and zip code?

I think the difference between the art humans do, and the art of the creator, is vastly different.

Whereas we enjoy the beauty of art work, the art of nature is more than beauty. It's life; meaning and purpose; fulfillment and satisfaction; peace; joy; hope; love... and we can go on.
That's why @Unveiled Artist, from the cradle to the grave, we seek answers.
More than that, we seek the things I just mentioned, but we seek more than these, life.
For without life, where is love? Where is beauty.

I dont see the difference. We have different details describing our experiences but at the end we are all human so what I see in art and what you see in god really isnt different in regards to how the two affects us. I just dont have scripture to turn to. Just life.

If scientists were today able to find longevity, about 90 percent of people would want it, but the again, not - maybe only if they were Superman - able to battle crime, cyclones, tornadoes... earthquakes???

Shrugs. Im understanding rebirth a bit more; and, I dont mind coming back to a good world with heavenly bliss but it distracts the fact and Truth that we will die. Cyclones, tornados, illnesses, etc happen because of nature and our bodies are patterned to decay once born. Not many people want pain and on the other hand not many people accept that pain is a part of the dying process. We act as if cures will keep us from dying. It lengthens our ideal lifespan but not when we die and how.

Maybe they need more superpowers, to battle any disease, poverty, death. That's right. Superman isn't immortal, is he.

Imo @Unveiled Artist, we need God, and the promises in the scriptures are coming true, so I am confident he will fulfill his promise at Revelation 21:3, 4.

Going back to the creator, art thing. Why is an art fan in need and need to know the artist instead of appreciating the artwork of someone we cant meet in person?

Are they having a relationship with the artist or who they perceive is the artist in relation to his work?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

By the way @nPeace happy birthday

 

[Agent]

Oxygen is not a steady gas, so it likes to react with other elements like hydrogen. This gives us water.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

As I've asked before: where? What passages? It mentions the "four corners of the Earth", but then it also says "the circle of the Earth." The writers were simply taking artistic license, using poetic prose in their descriptions.

I have no reason to believe that the words weren't written / spoken or understood literally.

Here are a variety of relevant scriptures:

Spoiler: biblical cosmology

ON PILLARS

Job 9:6 - Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble.

1 Samuel 2:8 - The PILLARS OF THE EARTH are the Lords, and he hath set the world upon them.

This is contradicted elsewhere:

Job 26:7 - He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and HANGETH the earth upon nothing.

MOTIONLESS EARTH

I Chronicles 16:30 - The world also is firmly established, it shall NOT BE MOVED

Psalm 93:1 - "Surely the world is established, so that it cannot be moved"

Psalm 93: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm, thy throne firm from of old.”

1 Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."

Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ..."

Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."

Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."

FOUR-CORNERED EARTH

Revelation 7:1 - And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

Isaiah 11:12 - ... and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH.

EARTH'S EDGES

Job 38:13 - That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?

Jeremiah 16:19 - ... the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH

Daniel 4:11 - The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH

Job 38:13 - that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it

CIRCULAR EARTH

Isaiah 40:22 - He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

FLAT EARTH

Isaiah 11:12 - And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH.

Job 38:13 - That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?

Jeremiah 16:19 - O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit.

Daniel 4:11 - The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH:

Matthew 4:8 - Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

Isaiah 40:22 - He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth.

Ok, but putting faith in the Big Bang is what you are doing because there is no solid proof, only ideas and beliefs at what could have occured.

I have no faith in the Big Bang, What I believe is based on evidence - red shifting, the cosmic microwave background, and the elemental composition of pristine nebulae

I have examined all the evidence and I have come to the aware conclusion that there is a divine being, not just choosing this because I like the idea of it or because it fits in with my agenda.

The evidence doesn't suggest that there is a divine being. One must begin withe that premise before examining the evidence, then massage it so that it seems to support the premise.

Many people would like to believe thattheir is no God so they can just do whatever they want

The reason to an atheist has nothing to do with anything other than the fact that the atheist sees no evidence that suggests that gods exist. Also, a critical thinker doesn't choose what he believes. He is compelled to believe what he based on evidence. If it supports belief, he believes. If it doesn't, he does't believe.

You have not given me any solid proof of the Big Bang yet.

It's not necessary that you agree. The evidence is there for those interested and trained in evaluating it. Proof is irrelevant.

if you have a look at the Genesis account and what science actually has to say you will find it quite accurate

I found the opposite. The following was written by Polymath

Spoiler: problems with Genesis

1) The Earth was without form and void and darkness was on the face of the deep.
a. Notice that the Earth already existed.
b. There was a 'deep'. In the original, it was certainly interpreted as water, but we can allow an interpretation as 'space'. In any case, space and the Earth already exist.

2) Light.
a. This is out of order. Light would have existed LONG before the Earth. The Earth is only 4.5 billion years old, while the universe is about 13.7 billion years. There were stars long before the Earth and they would have emitted light.

3) God divided the light from the darkness. Darkness was called Night and light was called Day. This is the first day.
a. This regards darkness as a substance separate from the substance of light. This is wrong.
b. Night and Day happen because of the rotation of the Earth with respect to the sun. But the sun isn't formed until later. This is out of order.

4) God divided the waters by a firmament, calling the firmament 'heaven'. This is the second day.
a. This makes clear that the 'deep' is actually made of water.
b. No firmament has ever been discovered. So this isn't even in the *actual* order.
c. Your quote mistakes this for the formation of an atmosphere, which is clearly wrong.

5) Dry land, grass, seeded plants, fruit trees.
a. Seeded plants existed LONG before flowering plants (and fruit trees are flowering plants)
b. Grass was even later than flowering plants (since grass is, technically a flowering plant).
c. There would have been sea creatures LONG before land plants.

6) Formation of the Sun and Moon
a. The sun would have actually preceded the Earth. This is badly out of order.
b. The Moon would have formed before land plants. This is also badly out of order.
c. The sun is required for Day and Night. Again, badly out of order.

7) Whales, other sea creatures, and winged fowl.
a. In actuality, birds (winged fowl) existed before grass. Again, out of order.
b. There would have been sea creatures in the oceans before land plants.
c. Whales evolved from land animals. Again, way out of order.
d. The first whales evolved long after birds.

8) Land animals. Specifically cattle and those that 'creepeth' on the Earth.
a. There were land animals way before there were flowering plants or grass. Out of order.
b. Modern cattle came after humans (although other bovines existed before, so this is ambiguous)

9) Humans.
Well, I guess this is mostly right.

Can you please give me some examples of when the Genesis account is proved wrong by science? Because I don’t see any.

See above.

What I am saying is that the bible is scientifically accurate, however people often fail to see this

What I am saying is that the bible is scientifically inaccurate, however believers often fail to see this, and those that do still won't call it inaccurate. The call it metaphor, or allegory, but not inaccurate.

When I look at things like this, I wonder how there couldn’t be a creator. When you look at these things, you see what looks like mindless actions, but I see proof of a intelligent designer to create such intricate and amazing things, how could it happen on it’s own?

You are correct. I do not see proof or even evidence of an intelligent designer. That is not to say that there was none, just that there is insufficient evidence to support such a belief, and science has gone a long way without needing to add a god to any of its theories. I expect that trend to continue indefinitely. Science will go one adding to the human fund of knowledge of how things work, how things came to be, a what will be their fate without needing to invoke supernaturalism.

 

[ecco]

Why not? Science can compile evidence regarding the origins of the concepts of gods. How and why did the concept of gods begin?

But this is not the same thing as investigating God. Science cannot do that, because it is a subjective investigation. Science studies objects, not the interiors of human experience. That's why the empric-analytic sciences are not the right tool.

I did not say or suggest "investigating God". Please re-read the above. Note the word "concept"

I will grant that finding evidence invalidating the actual existence of the God who Created Everything Last Thursday is impossible. However, in that case, we can go back to evaluating the findings of the origins of god myths.

Why? How is that the logical conclusion? If scriptures are shown to be flawed, this concludes all spiritual experiences of humans throughout the millennia should be discounted? How? Why? Please explain the logic of this to me.

Holy scripture is believed, by the believers, to be "dictated by God" and transcribed by people in cases like Mohammed and Moses. Alternatively, as in the Gospels, written by firsthand eyewitnesses.

Regarding the stories direct from God: if they contain factual errors then we can look at a few reasons:

• God lied
• The stories were transcribed incorrectly
• The stories did not originate with God

Any of these lead to the conclusion that the stories are not really about a God. In other words, they are works of fiction.

Regarding the stories from eyewitness accounts: if they contain factual errors then we can look at a few reasons:

• The eyewitnesses are unreliable.
• The eyewitnesses could not have recorded the information.

Either of these lead to the conclusion that the stories are not really about a God. In other words, they are works of fiction.

FYI, I absolutely see the flaws of scripture, I know a great deal about how it was created, and it's no magical book dropped from the sky flawless and fit for fundamentalists to read and bash each other over the head with. Yet, in light of all that, I completely accept the reality of the Divine. So, I'm really not sure how this works in your mind that that disproves anything?

You know they are works of fiction, yet you choose to believe the primary subject is factual.

Science can compile evidence regarding the actual existence of gods. If the scripture describing a god is shown to be flawed, then one can come to the conclusion that that god does not exist.

Again, studying that doesn't say anything about God be real or not. People's ideas of God begin in primitive understandings, but they grow and evolve over time.

What were the primitive origins? Fear of the unknown (which still drives a lot of people today). Ignorance. Why is there lightning? Why did our crops die? Where did we all come from (which still drives many people today).

I think the problem here it twofold. First, you think that God is nothing more that people's ideas and concepts, and fail to recognize that mystical experience is the core of most religious beginnings (even though that gets lost in time).

"Mystical experiences" can be brought on by ingesting peyote, chewing cocaine, spending hours in a sweat box, blacking out, being psychotic and hundreds of other reasons. Mystical experiences are not reality.

Secondly, you probably imagine that God is that anthropomorphic deity called Jehovah by the ancient Jews.

That is completely wrong. Gods are the creation of man's imaginings. All gods. Thor, Athena, Ogun, Shiva, Allah, et al.

There are other understandings that are a bit more compatible with modern knowledge of the natural world through science. It seems in finding fault with earlier, more primitive beliefs, it knocks God off the throne out of all human experience for you, since that is the only idea of God you understand.

That is completely wrong. Unlike most people, I treat all gods equally. Gods are the creation of man's imaginings. All gods. Thor, Athena, Ogun, Shiva, Allah, et al.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I believe God "designed" evolution in that he designed the universe in such a way that evolution would be an emergent property.

Even if God used evolution in lower forms of life, according to Genesis No evolution for mankind.
Adam was directed created from the dust of the ground. Adam was fashioned from created ground.
Adam did Not come to life until his God ' breathed the breath of life ' into lifeless Adam as per Genesis 2:7.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Young earth is not a science claim. It's a religious claim that lacks any science supporting it. What you mean to say is, you are open to religious claims regarding science matters, over science's claims regarding science matters? Is that an accurate assessment of your position?

I find nothing in Scripture supporting a ' young earth ' . That is Not biblical.
I have heard people say God just made the earth look old.
To me, that is quite silly because God can Not lie, and to make something young look old would be a deceitful lie.