The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

Mickeroo wrote: »

No you're not mistaken, and neither am i, because you posses no powers that I do not. The fact that you genuinely think god has told you christianity is the right one and that it's all true blinds you to the fact that you only think it. I am intelligent enough to know how the human mind works.

Interesting - you know I possess no powers you do not. That would mean you know there is no God who would communicate to others what He had not presently done to yourself. Where did you get this insight?

Or are you only guessing/hoping?

Mickeroo

wolfsbane wrote: »

Interesting - you know I possess no powers you do not. That would mean you know there is no God who would communicate to others what He had not presently done to yourself. Where did you get this insight?

Or are you only guessing/hoping?

I know because you are nothing more than human like myself. Talk about delusions of grandeur.

wolfsbane

Mickeroo wrote: »

If you look for a pattern in anything you'll find it because you want it to be there. I dont deny there could be a 'god',but anyone who says they know for sure is either delusional or talking out of their ass. fact.

How do you know the 'god' whom you concede might exist has not revealed himself to others, even if he has not done to you? I would have thought a rational man would have amended your list to read, anyone who says they know for sure is either delusional or talking out of their ass or factual.

Mickeroo

wolfsbane wrote: »

How do you know the 'god' whom you concede might exist has not revealed himself to others, even if he has not done to you? I would have thought a rational man would have amended your list to read, anyone who says they know for sure is either delusional or talking out of their ass or factual.

How would you know how a rational man thinks? Rational people look for evidence and proof, next time god shows himself to you,take a picture.

wolfsbane

Mickeroo wrote: »

I know because you are nothing more than human like myself. Talk about delusions of grandeur.

I am indeed only human like yourself. But that does not rule out God having revealed himself to me. My experiences are not limited to yours, nor yours to mine.

If you claim to have shaken hands with President Obama, I could not say you are delusional or lying just because it had not happened to me. It may be true or not, and would take an intensive search of Obama's and your schedules to rule it out completely.

The grand thing about knowing God is not that one is something special in oneself, but that God has been amazingly gracious to a poor sinner. And that opportunity is offered to you too. Acts 17:29 Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising. 30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”

wolfsbane

Mickeroo wrote: »

How would you know how a rational man thinks? Rational people look for evidence and proof, next time god shows himself to you,take a picture.

I have plenty of evidence and proof enough to convince me. But anyone who thinks God, if He is real, can be photographed is in need of both common sense and a course in logic.

Mickeroo

wolfsbane wrote: »

I am indeed only human like yourself. But that does not rule out God having revealed himself to me. My experiences are not limited to yours, nor yours to mine.

If you claim to have shaken hands with President Obama, I could not say you are delusional or lying just because it had not happened to me. It may be true or not, and would take an intensive search of Obama's and your schedules to rule it out completely.

The grand thing about knowing God is not that one is something special in oneself, but that God has been amazingly gracious to a poor sinner. And that opportunity is offered to you too. Acts 17:29 Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising. 30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”

Oh now come on, I'd be at an advantage because I have conclusive proof that president Obama exists for a start. You're really clutching at straws here.

Mickeroo

wolfsbane wrote: »

I have plenty of evidence and proof enough to convince me. But anyone who thinks God, if He is real, can be photographed is in need of both common sense and a course in logic.

No you don't. Where i see the natural order of every day life you see god,it's as simple as that.

Yes i need a course in logic because i think you could take a photograph of god, thats hilarious on so many levels. You need a course in sarcasm, and if you took a course in logic i doubt you would pass. Tell me,does god have a reflection or does he also share this trait with vampires too? :P

also,why did you use the word "if"? I thought you maintained it's existence as a fact?

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

You make it sound like there is no reason to think that you don't actually know.

In fact there is only reasons to think you don't actually know. Again, what you are describing is pretty much exactly the time of illusion we know the brain can cause in people.

On the other hand there is no reason so far given to think you are actually are touched by God.

You cannot demonstrate this effect at all. You just have your own personal assessment that this is what has happened, which doesn't mean very much.

I don't need to demonstrate it to anyone but myself. I have to be convinced by sufficient evidence. I have been. I tell you so and you follow it up between you and God, or you do not. I cannot convince you; only God can.

So if you consider He might exist, you need to consider all that flows from that: about your guilt and the certainty of eternal damnation if you do not repent and turn to Him.

I can reason with you about the witness of the universe to its Creator, and of the witness of your conscience to you being a condemned sinner; and I can bring you the good news of God's call to you to be saved and the provision He has made for that in Christ for all who repent and believe. But you must be convinced of it in your own heart, and that only happens between you and Him.

PDN

Mickeroo wrote: »

No you're not mistaken, and neither am i, because you posses no powers that I do not. The fact that you genuinely think god has told you christianity is the right one and that it's all true blinds you to the fact that you only think it. I am intelligent enough to know how the human mind works.

Self praise is no recommendation. I must say that your posts on this forum don't provide much evidence for this intelligence of which you speak.

Mickeroo

PDN wrote: »

Self praise is no recommendation. I must say that your posts on this forum don't provide much evidence for this intelligence of which you speak.

you just dont get me I dont feel the need to justify my intelligence to anyone, least not a stranger on an internet forum.

wolfsbane

Mickeroo wrote: »

No you don't. Where i see the natural order of every day life you see god,it's as simple as that.

Yes i need a course in logic because i think you could take a photograph of god, thats hilarious on so many levels. You need a course in sarcasm, and if you took a course in logic i doubt you would pass. Tell me,does god have a reflection or does he also share this trait with vampires too? :P

Sometimes it is best not answering a fool according to his folly. But let me suggest that natural order would be a most unlikely explanation for the answers to prayer I have received.

And as for taking a photo of God, you seem to forget Who He is. He doesn't play games with sinners. He lays nations waste and chastens those He loves. Neither you nor I would have the nerve to lift our eyes from the ground if He showed Himself to us. The few men of God who have seen the exalted Christ had to be revived by Him in order even to speak:
Revelation 1:17 And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying to me, “Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last.

Mickeroo

wolfsbane wrote: »

Sometimes it is best not answering a fool according to his folly. But let me suggest that natural order would be a most unlikely explanation for the answers to prayer I have received.

And as for taking a photo of God, you seem to forget Who He is. He doesn't play games with sinners. He lays nations waste and chastens those He loves. Neither you nor I would have the nerve to lift our eyes from the ground if He showed Himself to us. The few men of God who have seen the exalted Christ had to be revived by Him in order even to speak:
Revelation 1:17 And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying to me, “Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last.

I would stare him straight in the eye(assuming he has eyes) my good man ,all the happiness i have in my life is my own doing,without the utterence of a prayer. I wont pry into what prayers you had answered.

Have a good saint patricks day,it's been fun.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

You are saying a morality that is shared by many is objectively of more value than that possessed by a minority, if it is based upon evidence and understanding.

No, the value is still subjective. I value that morality more. I believe that others should also, but I recognise that they may not.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But what evidence can inform morality?

Biological evidence informs our valuation of life. We know that (very broadly) other animal species are less self-aware than us, have more minimal psychological needs. We can use that knowledge to adjust our values. We do not value them as we value human life. However we also know that many species are much more psychologically complex than was once assumed, and so we must allow that to inform our values also. Again though, this is merely information. Knowing, for example, that other humans are emotionally and psychologically like me based upon evidence can inform my morality. But if I don't value human life in the first place, that knowledge will not be used to inform the assertion that human life has value.

wolfsbane wrote: »

You have said evolution has nothing to say to morality.

It can inform morality just as all information can. But it cannot compel us to act against our values any more than any other information can.

wolfsbane wrote: »

That the universe has no objective meaning. To what evidence do we apply our understanding that we can derive a morality more valuable than the next man's?

I never said that moralities can be objectively valued or compared. The valuation is still subjective, even if it is collective.

wolfsbane wrote: »

There are examples in many times and places, many not relating to religious people - but it is difficult to prove their integrity. The possessor will know, but unless he/she has widely annonced the fact before it happens it is difficult to prove there is no conspiracy to deceive. And of course the prescience is usually not designed to offer public proof.

So, how do you know that any of these example are real and not coincidence or fraud. How do you test that?

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm thinking of things like intimations of impending deaths/disasters, and knowledge of such before they have been announced.

6 billion people are alive in the world today, another several billion have lived across all of recorded history. Given that predictions tend to always be given in less than direct language (nobody ever says "this exact disaster will occur at x location at y time incurring z deaths and q injuries) and that a great many such predictions have been made every year for thousands of years- how many would we expect to appear to predict the future by mere coincidence? How can we test the difference between these and true prescience events? Why has this never been successfully tested?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Certainly - but it is just as difficult to observe what has already occurred.

How so? Something like prescience, if it were real, would be easily tested even if it were rare and not reproducible within the individual. The claim in general is that it is rare but still reproducible in the population (if not in individuals), so there should be no problem.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Science belongs to theism just as much as it does to atheism or any other ism that seeks to expound on reality.

It can be used by anyone, certainly. It's just a method, after all.

wolfsbane wrote: »

God made the laws of physics. Theism invites full discovery of the material world. It invites discovery of the spiritual world only as far as God has revealed it.

But again, that's not an explanation. That's just the word of one source that cannot be objectively verified. There are a great many such sources, they all contradict each other to some extent and they all have followers who are just as sure as you are that they alone are correct. They say just the same things as you do, that the others are in some sort of denial or delusion but that they themselves know the truth. This tells us exactly nothing. It explains nothing. It's a trial in which all of the witnesses disagree.

wolfsbane wrote: »

It is not to be investigated further.

Which is why science is only compatible with your world view to a point.

wolfsbane wrote: »

No spiritism/occult practices, like fortune-telling or communicating with the spirits.

That stuff has all long since been examined and debunked by modern science. There are no mysteries in any of this stuff. Just a mixture of the mind tricks we evolved with (and which demanded the development of the scientific method) and some very clever psychology and physiology. Read the Tricks of the Mind by Derren Brown some time. He rather neatly explains why all such occultism is basically garbage. He himself used to be a devout Christian, pentecostal of some sort I think.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The extent and combination may then define the unbridgeable gulf between us and the animals, rather than being just a variation.

The "gulf" between all extant species is unbridgeable in the present. If it weren't, evolution would be totally wrong.

wolfsbane wrote: »

God doesn't tell us, and there is no way to find out. In which case we should mind our own business.... Nothing material. Spirit seems to be self-defining. It fits well with our observation of the behaviour of man and is much more satisfactory than the materialist model. The Son was always 'in the mix' - He in fact created all things, including the spirits. But if you mean His atoning death, then we can say many millions of spirits have been freed from sin's power and penalty, and those who have gone to heaven are also free from sin's presence. He doesn't say, other than Deity took on humanity in the womb of a woman. We can speculate as to whether it is that time does not exist in heaven or it is that it has no effect on God. But for our sakes He reveals His purposes in order of time. We cannot test them, for they are not in our world. It is its own dimension... No... It is isolated so that it cannot be observed by non-spiritual eyes; it is not touched/effected by the material universe; but the decisions made there have sovereign control over the material universe - indeed, this universe depends for its moment by moment existence on the Divine will in heaven. I'm not sure what you mean, but Heaven has our lenght/breadth/height locations and sense of time. It is not a point and the persons in it are conscious of chronological events. As I said, it is the spirit world, so beyond testing. By being experienced, when we stand before Him. By always existing. He knows all; He controls all. They can only be experienced.

No answers here. There's no detail- no mechanisms. No empirical evidence beyond the mundane. None of this explains nor predicts anything. You even admit that the whole lot cannot be objectively verified. So why is it step one in Creation Science? Science is scepticism of the untested. Why is the initial position in creation science credulity rather than scepticism?

The Mad Hatter

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Read the Tricks of the Mind by Derren Brown some time. He rather neatly explains why all such occultism is basically garbage. He himself used to be a devout Christian, pentecostal of some sort I think.

Let's be fair, AH - Wolfsbane probably wouldn't get past the first sentence. (Note: Wolfsbane, this is not a slight on your intelligence but rather on your probable unwillingness to read a book that begins with the line 'The Bible is not history.')

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, it doesn't bother me. With due care one can avoid spurious patterns. I know folk who see signs in all sorts of circumstances - they pray for guidance on finding a wife, and imagine the first girl who smiles at them is a direct answer from God. I would insist on several more criteria before even considering something as an answer.

On the other hand, if one saw several criteria fulfilled each time one asked, insisting there wasn't a pattern would indicate one was holding on to an illusion. As it happens, I have seen it on sufficient occasions to warrant the recognition of a pattern.

There's a problem in this which you keep ignoring. You're aware that the mind plays tricks, that revelations may be false- to the point of certainty in a great many people. So you have criteria, as laid out by the bible, which allow you to discern true revelation from delusion. But your certainty that those the criteria are correct, that the bible is correct, is based on revelation.

So how do you really test any of it, even subjectively? Because whether you're right or wrong, it seems that all you're actually doing is deciding to believe because you feel better that way. Is that the case?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, it doesn't bother me. With due care one can avoid spurious patterns. I know folk who see signs in all sorts of circumstances - they pray for guidance on finding a wife, and imagine the first girl who smiles at them is a direct answer from God. I would insist on several more criteria before even considering something as an answer.

On the other hand, if one saw several criteria fulfilled each time one asked, insisting there wasn't a pattern would indicate one was holding on to an illusion. As it happens, I have seen it on sufficient occasions to warrant the recognition of a pattern.

But the number of criteria is irrelevant if your mind is inventing the significance.

It is like saying seeing a black cat doesn't mean anything, but seeing a black cat, a magpie and a red sun I would worry.

robindch

AtomicHorror wrote: »

That stuff has all long since been examined and debunked by modern science. There are no mysteries in any of this stuff. Just a mixture of the mind tricks we evolved with (and which demanded the development of the scientific method) and some very clever psychology and physiology. Read the Tricks of the Mind by Derren Brown some time.

I'd also recommend Ian Rowland's The Full Facts Book of Cold Reading which is a step-by-step guide to how to use Cold Reading to do things like "speaking" with the dead, clairvoyance, psychic readings etc, etc. For fun and profit of course.

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

I'd also recommend Ian Rowland's The Full Facts Book of Cold Reading which is a step-by-step guide to how to use Cold Reading to do things like "speaking" with the dead, clairvoyance, psychic readings etc, etc. For fun and profit of course.

Yes, most 'spiritualism' is fakery I'm sure. As is a lot of evangelism (as in Televangelist). Psychological manipulation and hand-is-faster-than-the-eye stuff.

But that is not to say real spirits are not involved in some things, or that prescience is not given to some. Both illicit occult knowledge and legitimate Divine gifting exist, according to the Bible and in my limited experience.

The existence of iron pyrites does not disprove the existence of gold.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

But the number of criteria is irrelevant if your mind is inventing the significance.

It is like saying seeing a black cat doesn't mean anything, but seeing a black cat, a magpie and a red sun I would worry.

The criteria exist as a standard before I see them.

Let's use your simple example: suppose you ask for a sign that you are to take up a job offer with Jaguar and you and your Black wife are to emigrate to Japan. You ask that God affirm this if it is the right course by giving you a sign tying all these together. The next morning you look out the window to see a lovely red sunrise, and are amazed to see the neighbour's black cat sitting peacefully on your lawn beside a lively young magpie.

If you saw that as confirmation of your request, would you be falsely reading significance into it, or drawing a rational conclusion from it?

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

There's a problem in this which you keep ignoring. You're aware that the mind plays tricks, that revelations may be false- to the point of certainty in a great many people. So you have criteria, as laid out by the bible, which allow you to discern true revelation from delusion. But your certainty that those the criteria are correct, that the bible is correct, is based on revelation.

So how do you really test any of it, even subjectively? Because whether you're right or wrong, it seems that all you're actually doing is deciding to believe because you feel better that way. Is that the case?

No, it is not because I feel better that way. It is because I recognise it as the truth.

The revelation of the Bible has been confirmed many times in my experience. That makes me doubly sure the Bible is the standard by which to test the spirits and all who claim to speak the truth.

MatthewVII

wolfsbane wrote: »

If you saw that as confirmation of your request, would you be falsely reading significance into it, or drawing a rational conclusion from it?

The first one. There is nothing rational in seeing patterns in coincidence. In this particular situation -

1) you are LOOKING for a sign. This makes it much more likely that you'll find one

2) Your neighbour owns a black cat. Should it be significant that it's hanging around where it lives? Even if it didn't live there, random/stray black cats are incredibly common. In the past they thought of them as ill omens. How they extrapolated this we don't know, but we do know that they are of no significance. They are just cats

3) It's morningtime. Chances are there's going to be a sunrise

None of these things mean anything individually, and together they still mean nothing.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, it is not because I feel better that way. It is because I recognise it as the truth.

The revelation of the Bible has been confirmed many times in my experience.

Confirmed in a manner not objectively verifiable. How is that different to revelation? You're in a logical loop, confirming one thing which confirms another which confirms the first thing. Are you really unable to see that?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, most 'spiritualism' is fakery I'm sure. As is a lot of evangelism (as in Televangelist). Psychological manipulation and hand-is-faster-than-the-eye stuff.

But that is not to say real spirits are not involved in some things, or that prescience is not given to some. Both illicit occult knowledge and legitimate Divine gifting exist, according to the Bible and in my limited experience.

The existence of iron pyrites does not disprove the existence of gold.

Science cannot disprove the existence of a thing. Imagine gold did not exist at all but in mythology. For how long should scientists study sample after sample of yellow metal before discarding the positive assumption that gold exists? One example would verify the hypothesis that gold exists, but no number of samples can disprove it. It becomes reasonable to be sceptical about the existence of gold until evidence emerges.

In all of our study of "occultism" we have found not one thing that cannot be explained by the mundane. Not one of the claimed instances of prescience nor necromancy or mind reading has ever been verified. The gold has not been found even once. Is it reasonable to assume that it exists? Or should scepticism rule.

Flamed Diving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZVAAvB8l4o

So Ben Stein thinks evolution explains:

a) Gravity

b) The origin of the universe

c) Thermodynamics

d) Physics

e) Origin of life

LMAO! What fool would believe anything this guy says about science?

AtomicHorror

Flamed Diving wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZVAAvB8l4o

So Ben Stein thinks evolution explains:

a) Gravity

b) The origin of the universe

c) Thermodynamics

d) Physics

e) Origin of life

LMAO! What fool would believe anything this guy says about science?

The guy was Nixon's speech writer and lawyer- I think we can say he's unlikely to be overly familiar with the truth.

Flamed Diving

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The guy was Nixon's speech writer and lawyer- I think we can say he's unlikely to be overly familiar with the truth.

No. I'm pretty sure that evolution explains gravity.

Think about it.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

The criteria exist as a standard before I see them.

Let's use your simple example: suppose you ask for a sign that you are to take up a job offer with Jaguar and you and your Black wife are to emigrate to Japan. You ask that God affirm this if it is the right course by giving you a sign tying all these together. The next morning you look out the window to see a lovely red sunrise, and are amazed to see the neighbour's black cat sitting peacefully on your lawn beside a lively young magpie.

If you saw that as confirmation of your request, would you be falsely reading significance into it, or drawing a rational conclusion from it?

You would be falsely reading significance into it, that is the point.

Because you have already asked God for a "sign" means you will be on the look out for random events that your mind attaches significance to, even if there isn't any significance. And you will always find them if you are looking.

Again we know human brains do this, studies have demonstrated that humans will imagine patterns and connections in events that have none, especially under certain circumstances such as they were looking for connections. To me this would a reason to specifically ignore these types of instincts, rather than embrace them as you seem to do.

AtomicHorror

Flamed Diving wrote: »

No. I'm pretty sure that evolution explains gravity.

Think about it.

You're right! Natural selection at work. Organisms that fall up are more likely to fly into space and die.

AtomicHorror

Wicknight wrote: »

You would be falsely reading significance into it, that is the point.

Because you have already asked God for a "sign" means you will be on the look out for random events that your mind attaches significance to, even if there isn't any significance. And you will always find them if you are looking.

Again we know human brains do this, studies have demonstrated that humans will imagine patterns and connections in events that have none, especially under certain circumstances such as they were looking for connections. To me this would a reason to specifically ignore these types of instincts, rather than embrace them as you seem to do.

Even scientists do this (we're human after all) which is why we have to do randomisation and blinding and statistics and peer review and objective confirmation. We're just the same as the religious mentally, but we know it and have systems to get around it.

We still have to go further though, meta-analyses to spot publication bias for example. But it seems to work. We've made such remarkable progress.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by Flamed Diving
No. I'm pretty sure that evolution explains gravity.

Think about it.



AtomicHorror
You're right! Natural selection at work. Organisms that fall up are more likely to fly into space and die.

...I see you have BOTH been watching those recent 'puff pieces' on TV about Darwin!!!!:pac::):D

....and ye are making just about as much sense!!!!!:eek::D