The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

...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

No, pay attention J C. We've been watching the steaming pile of crap that is Expelled. And the interviews with Stein that surrounded its promotion. In which the moron reveals that he knows less than nothing about what evolution is and then expects us to accept his appraisal of it.

It seems that the small matter of my 15 questions (14769) and your 21 (14748) questions has still not been resolved. I posted 15 questions, you had replied and I had refuted your replies. So I'm waiting to hear counter arguments there. You also posted your own 21 or so questions from way back when which I have replied to in full. Waiting for your rebuttals there.

I also dismantled your probability argument as nonsense and would be most interested to hear your defence:

AtomicHorror wrote:

You don't understand probability J C- that much is painfully obvious. I notice that back in the day you used to assert that evolution was impossible based on the probability of the human genome coming into existence spontaneously. A meaningless assertion since nobody has ever claimed it did so. And now you use some "specific simple protein" as if that has anything to do with evolution or abiogenesis.

I'll try to explain it in simple terms:

1. The probability of any specified sequence coming into existence incrementally is always higher than the probability of it coming into existence in a single step. So if we assume that specified sequences are relevant to abiogenesis or evolution, your calculations are immediately incorrect. Your probabilities are automatically an over-estimation.

2. Abiogenesis and evolution are non-teleological. Function follows form. Therefore, considering the probability of existence of specified sequences is nonsensical. Instead you have to look at non-specified sequences of a given length or complexity. Again, you've failed to do this.

It has now been many weeks and you've not addressed any of this.

bonkey

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?

If I asked for "a sign", and interpreted this to be the sign, I'd go with the former. After all, I see more than the sun, the cat and the bird looking out the window, so why do I get to choose these three things as my "symbology" and not (say) the Ford I see on my way to work, with a Confederate flag paintjob, which has a crow hopping around on the bonnet?

If I said "Dear Lord, if I am to follow this course, please let me see a red sun when I look out the window tomorrow morning, (despite the weather forecast being for cloud cover). Allow a ray of sunlight to fall upon my neighbours black cat, sleeping peacefully on the lawn (despite it never sleeping on a dewy lawn) as a magpie (which aren't typically found in these parts) plays merrily beside it" and that came to pass, then I'd be seriously leaning towards the latter.

AtomicHorror

bonkey wrote: »

If I asked for "a sign", and interpreted this to be the sign, I'd go with the former. After all, I see more than the sun, the cat and the bird looking out the window, so why do I get to choose these three things as my "symbology" and not (say) the Ford I see on my way to work, with a Confederate flag paintjob, which has a crow hopping around on the bonnet?

If I said "Dear Lord, if I am to follow this course, please let me see a red sun when I look out the window tomorrow morning, (despite the weather forecast being for cloud cover). Allow a ray of sunlight to fall upon my neighbours black cat, sleeping peacefully on the lawn (despite it never sleeping on a dewy lawn) as a magpie (which aren't typically found in these parts) plays merrily beside it" and that came to pass, then I'd be seriously leaning towards the latter.

Believers will ask for signs on multiple occasions. The more of a believer, the more often signs will be asked for. Inevitably, on a couple of occasions these signs will be fulfilled by chance. In some cases they won't be, but circumstances will create some psychological connection allowing us to think "ah, my prayer was answered in they way that I needed rather than wanted" or somesuch. The first case is basically the same as drawing a small chalk circle on a barn door and then firing at the door with a machinegun until 3-4 bullet holes land in the circle. The second is the equivalent of firing at the barn door and then going over and drawing a circle around any and all clusters of 4 bullet holes.

In both cases, the pattern perceived is actually not real. It is random, but humans are terrible at recognising random. We confuse randomness with smoothness or homogeneity. When presented with sets of random numbers we find patterns. When presented with sets of deliberately "flattened" numbers we call it random. And as always, we tend to be pretty sure of ourselves in this regard until we actually sit down and use the system to work it all out. And realise that we can't actually trust our intuition at all.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Believers will ask for signs on multiple occasions. The more of a believer, the more often signs will be asked for. Inevitably, on a couple of occasions these signs will be fulfilled by chance. In some cases they won't be, but circumstances will create some psychological connection allowing us to think "ah, my prayer was answered in they way that I needed rather than wanted" or somesuch. The first case is basically the same as drawing a small chalk circle on a barn door and then firing at the door with a machinegun until 3-4 bullet holes land in the circle. The second is the equivalent of firing at the barn door and then going over and drawing a circle around any and all clusters of 4 bullet holes.

In both cases, the pattern perceived is actually not real. It is random, but humans are terrible at recognising random. We confuse randomness with smoothness or homogeneity. When presented with sets of random numbers we find patterns. When presented with sets of deliberately "flattened" numbers we call it random. And as always, we tend to be pretty sure of ourselves in this regard until we actually sit down and use the system to work it all out. And realise that we can't actually trust our intuition at all.

Sounds good, and no doubt it applies to some silly folk who all always looking for signs. But it does not apply to those who only ask for special guidance when it is needed. I have seldom needed such, but when I did I always received.

Mostly Christians are to go with sanctified common sense, applying Bible principles to their decisions. Where more detailed guidance is required, they ask God to show them. He does so as He pleases, though some have asked for specific signs. Gideon asked for the fleece to be dry and the ground wet; then for the fleece to be wet and the ground dry. He should have just trusted God to do as He said - but that's another story.

wolfsbane

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.

OK, it seems you would need a much more detailed sign. Is there any combination of circumstances you would consider a likely sign? Our friend bonkey is bold enough to offer one that would go towards his acceptance,

"Dear Lord, if I am to follow this course, please let me see a red sun when I look out the window tomorrow morning, (despite the weather forecast being for cloud cover). Allow a ray of sunlight to fall upon my neighbours black cat, sleeping peacefully on the lawn (despite it never sleeping on a dewy lawn) as a magpie (which aren't typically found in these parts) plays merrily beside it".

Care to specify what would do it for you?

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror said:

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?

If I see something miraculous happening/something very unlikely happening directly after my prayer for it, that is good enough for me. I appreciate it is no proof to anyone else, as they cannot be sure I'm telling the truth. I can.

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.

That is dealing with arranged tests of spirit-activity. I'm talking about real life occurances, not stage shows or staged tests. So no amount of failed tests have any bearing on natural occurances - the latter may or may not be true, as they have not been tested. Only those who experience them know for sure.

wolfsbane

MatthewVII wrote: »

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.

Ok, as I asked Wickie, care to specify a set of circumstances that would satisfy you for a sign?

In using the cat example, the combination of urgent prayer for guidance, the black cat (Jaguar), red sun (Japan), and magpie (Black & White) in peaceful relationship suggests an unlikely event to me. But I'm intrigued as to what you might need.

wolfsbane

Mickeroo wrote: »

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.

You will be in for an awful surprise if you meet Christ with this in your heart.

Thanks for the good wishes. I don't do saint's days, but I do enjoy the time off work.

MatthewVII

wolfsbane wrote:

Sounds good, and no doubt it applies to some silly folk who all always looking for signs. But it does not apply to those who only ask for special guidance when it is needed. I have seldom needed such, but when I did I always received.

Of course, this means that when you need a sign, you are out looking for one or expecting one to come along. This makes you far more likely to make something random become something significant. It is no different from someone who is desperate (and a bit silly) reading their horoscope to seek guidance and believing what they read is accurate about their own situations.

wolfsbane wrote:

Ok, as I asked Wickie, care to specify a set of circumstances that would satisfy you for a sign?

I would look for something that was so out of the ordinary that it could not possibly be explained by random chance. So, the cat, sun and magpie example is completely mundane and in no way indicative of intervention by a higher power. In this scenario, I would probably want lightning to strike a tree in the garden, knocking off a branch which would splinter improbably to form a pattern of a stylised Rising Sun on the garden when it fell. Then a Jaguar car would be blown by a freak gust and come to a stop in front of it, all the while a troupe of black cats would be dancing on their hind legs around the entire scene.

kiffer

MatthewVII wrote: »

Of course, this means that when you need a sign, you are out looking for one or expecting one to come along. This makes you far more likely to make something random become something significant. It is no different from someone who is desperate (and a bit silly) reading their horoscope to seek guidance and believing what they read is accurate about their own situations.



I would look for something that was so out of the ordinary that it could not possibly be explained by random chance. So, the cat, sun and magpie example is completely mundane and in no way indicative of intervention by a higher power. In this scenario, I would probably want lightning to strike a tree in the garden, knocking off a branch which would splinter improbably to form a pattern of a stylised Rising Sun on the garden when it fell. Then a Jaguar car would be blown by a freak gust and come to a stop in front of it, all the while a troupe of black cats would be dancing on their hind legs around the entire scene.

At which point you could safely assume that you were not in your right mind...

Trying to keep it with in the realm of the physicaly possible but highly improbable. I would have to say...
Watching my cat* and a magpie cooperating building a stylised rising sun out of pebbles. Then spelling out "Jaguar!" using twigs and stones from around the area.
Then having completed their great work they curl up together and watch a team of mice dance around the whole display.

*I say my cat as she is know to be a glorious huntress of great renown. She would not permit a magpie in her domain. If she could catch that magpie I'd be cleaning feathers and blood off the walls.
EDIT:
on further reflection regarding cats and magpies... Magpies are canny birds and fairly hard to catch, they often tease cats and I've known older/wiser cats to learn to "ignore" them even while the magpie is dancing around quite close to the cat.
A sort of uneasy truce can develop between magpies and the cat, the cat pretends the magpies don't exist so long as the magpies aren't actively pecking at the cats tail... unless of course the magpie turns its back and stops watching the cat, while being close enough for the cat to reach... a situation which the canny magpie doesn't let happen.

here are two videos showing Magpies teasing Black Cats, the second cat is far more tolerant than the first... Seeing magpies and cats "acting" peacefully is not that odd.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMi57hKIB4s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYBu4T8NUWc

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

If I see something miraculous happening/something very unlikely happening directly after my prayer for it, that is good enough for me. I appreciate it is no proof to anyone else, as they cannot be sure I'm telling the truth. I can.

Nobody is accusing you of lying. That would make no sense at all. You have no motive to do so. We're suggesting that your certainty is not unique. We're suggesting that others are just as sure as you are about things you disagree with entirely. So sure that they'd die for it, or kill for it, or fast and walk the Earth for their lives, or live with nothing till their last day. For gods you consider, in some cases, to be a laughable fabrication. You say you're certain that you know the truth, and that they would know it too if they let themselves, but they say the same of you. When you ask them how they know, they'll give the same answers you give.

wolfsbane wrote: »

That is dealing with arranged tests of spirit-activity. I'm talking about real life occurances, not stage shows or staged tests.

If it is real enough that people can experience it, and feel with certainty that they've experienced it, then why should it be immune to scientific examination? Unusual quality? Rarity? Sauce for the goose.

Real life, random occurrences, can be scientifically documented. Even if they're exceptionally rare. Ball lightening, comet impacts, the emergence of a new species; all sorts of rare and wonderful things. All observed, documented, objectively verified, modelled, understood. The only limit of science is human experience, be it physical or spiritual.

wolfsbane wrote: »

So no amount of failed tests have any bearing on natural occurances - the latter may or may not be true, as they have not been tested. Only those who experience them know for sure.

But they don't know for sure, that's the whole point. Our sense of certainty is as demonstrably fallible and prone to bias as any other part of our mind. The best we can do is limit bias and seek objective verification. Rigorously test and re-test.

AtomicHorror

MatthewVII wrote: »

I would look for something that was so out of the ordinary that it could not possibly be explained by random chance. So, the cat, sun and magpie example is completely mundane and in no way indicative of intervention by a higher power. In this scenario, I would probably want lightning to strike a tree in the garden, knocking off a branch which would splinter improbably to form a pattern of a stylised Rising Sun on the garden when it fell. Then a Jaguar car would be blown by a freak gust and come to a stop in front of it, all the while a troupe of black cats would be dancing on their hind legs around the entire scene.

That scene needs a guy wailing on an electric guitar in the middle of it all.

wolfsbane

kiffer wrote: »

At which point you could safely assume that you were not in your right mind...

Trying to keep it with in the realm of the physicaly possible but highly improbable. I would have to say...
Watching my cat* and a magpie cooperating building a stylised rising sun out of pebbles. Then spelling out "Jaguar!" using twigs and stones from around the area.
Then having completed their great work they curl up together and watch a team of mice dance around the whole display.

*I say my cat as she is know to be a glorious huntress of great renown. She would not permit a magpie in her domain. If she could catch that magpie I'd be cleaning feathers and blood off the walls.
EDIT:
on further reflection regarding cats and magpies... Magpies are canny birds and fairly hard to catch, they often tease cats and I've known older/wiser cats to learn to "ignore" them even while the magpie is dancing around quite close to the cat.
A sort of uneasy truce can develop between magpies and the cat, the cat pretends the magpies don't exist so long as the magpies aren't actively pecking at the cats tail... unless of course the magpie turns its back and stops watching the cat, while being close enough for the cat to reach... a situation which the canny magpie doesn't let happen.

here are two videos showing Magpies teasing Black Cats, the second cat is far more tolerant than the first... Seeing magpies and cats "acting" peacefully is not that odd.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMi57hKIB4s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYBu4T8NUWc

I bow to your superior knowledge of cat-magpie behaviour, and amend the example accordingly. Let's try a pied wagtail.

Crucially, you have the principle right - Trying to keep it with in the realm of the physicaly possible but highly improbable. My example was meant to convey that. The timing and prior lifestyle of the cat would be a factor too.

But cutting to the chase, any 'sign' would need to be impressed on one's mind as being from God as well as having apparent meaning, or be an undeniable exposure of a fact until then unknown. Subsequent events would also confirm the rightness of the message. That has been my experience.

I don't want to go round in circles with this, but let me give an example from my life:
I was responsble for distributing locally a leading Christian publication. A crisis arose among the producers over an important doctrine, and the staff split. The editor and several of the team left to publish a replacement paper that would tolerate/promote this doctrine; the owner and other staff members stayed to continue the paper and oppose the doctrine.

What was I to do? Was this doctrine of God or not? Good Christians differed and until then I had not come to view on it. I prayed for guidance, I examined the case both sides presented, I more earnestly studied the Bible about it. But I was still confused. I prayed on, asking for clear guidance urgently - for I had the next issues to order in days.

Within a day or two I was amazed to read in the Belfast Telegraph that a man I knew to be a heretic had been accepted into the communion of the leading local denomination that held to the doctrine in question. How could they do this, knowing his views? I rang him and had his wife confirm he had not changed, and he later made clear he saw no problem with reconciling his views both before and after.

Those who were persuaded of the excellence of this doctrine were in fact most gullible, and inexcuseably so. That told me the publishers of the new paper were being deceived and were in turn passing on the deception to others. Subsequent events have proven the rightness of my decision.

That was God's answer for me - a totally unexpected event that dealt with the heart of the issue, delivered just when I needed it.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
If I see something miraculous happening/something very unlikely happening directly after my prayer for it, that is good enough for me. I appreciate it is no proof to anyone else, as they cannot be sure I'm telling the truth. I can.
Nobody is accusing you of lying. That would make no sense at all. You have no motive to do so. We're suggesting that your certainty is not unique. We're suggesting that others are just as sure as you are about things you disagree with entirely. So sure that they'd die for it, or kill for it, or fast and walk the Earth for their lives, or live with nothing till their last day. For gods you consider, in some cases, to be a laughable fabrication. You say you're certain that you know the truth, and that they would know it too if they let themselves, but they say the same of you. When you ask them how they know, they'll give the same answers you give.

You're confusing my claims to know God with specific claims about previously hidden knowledge. I do not restrict such knowledge to Christians - anyone may at some time experience prescience. What it conveys may be factual or lies, but the reality is the same. If God chooses to reveal, say, that one's brother in Australia has died, and gives one an overwhleming conviction that it is so, that is up to Him. Satan may wish to reveal, say, facts only you know to be true, through the mouth of a seer, in order to lead you into the occult.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
That is dealing with arranged tests of spirit-activity. I'm talking about real life occurances, not stage shows or staged tests.
If it is real enough that people can experience it, and feel with certainty that they've experienced it, then why should it be immune to scientific examination? Unusual quality? Rarity? Sauce for the goose.

Because such experiences are not natural occurances, but spiritual in origin. Given by spirit beings. They do not feel compelled to to register in tests, unlike electricity, magnetism, etc.

Real life, random occurrences, can be scientifically documented. Even if they're exceptionally rare. Ball lightening, comet impacts, the emergence of a new species; all sorts of rare and wonderful things. All observed, documented, objectively verified, modelled, understood. The only limit of science is human experience, be it physical or spiritual.

All these are material, not spiritual. We can manipulate material things. Spirits manipulate us, if given the chance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
So no amount of failed tests have any bearing on natural occurances - the latter may or may not be true, as they have not been tested. Only those who experience them know for sure.
But they don't know for sure, that's the whole point. Our sense of certainty is as demonstrably fallible and prone to bias as any other part of our mind. The best we can do is limit bias and seek objective verification. Rigorously test and re-test.

So if a man told you he had been convinced his brother in Australia had died hours before anyone told him, you say he must be lying/mistaken/the victim of a chance emotion coinciding with the event? No chance he might be right?

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

You're confusing my claims to know God with specific claims about previously hidden knowledge. I do not restrict such knowledge to Christians - anyone may at some time experience prescience. What it conveys may be factual or lies, but the reality is the same. If God chooses to reveal, say, that one's brother in Australia has died, and gives one an overwhleming conviction that it is so, that is up to Him. Satan may wish to reveal, say, facts only you know to be true, through the mouth of a seer, in order to lead you into the occult.

Ah, I see what you mean now. To my mind, both are equally unverifiable though.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Because such experiences are not natural occurances, but spiritual in origin. Given by spirit beings. They do not feel compelled to to register in tests, unlike electricity, magnetism, etc.

But they are observable. Natural or supernatural is irrelevant. A thing can be observed or it cannot. If it can't be observed then nobody actually knows about it. If it can be observed, it can be tested. A test for prescience, for example, is nothing more complex or obtrusive than looking at the premonition and comparing it to the outcome. These things either work or they do not, but for them to be real they must be testable in some sense.

wolfsbane wrote: »

All these are material, not spiritual. We can manipulate material things. Spirits manipulate us, if given the chance.

How do you know this? How can you verify this?

wolfsbane wrote: »

So if a man told you he had been convinced his brother in Australia had died hours before anyone told him, you say he must be lying/mistaken/the victim of a chance emotion coinciding with the event? No chance he might be right?

Of course there's a chance. But it's far far more likely to be coincidence. There's no reason to assume that the unlikeliest case is true without evidence, otherwise we're compelled to believe an almost infinite number of very unlikely things.

People have a "bad feeling" about people they know and care about frequently. I do it myself all the time- I'm a worrier. Most of the time, I find my friend or partner is okay and so I dismiss the feeling. I can remember only one or two such events properly now as they were not important enough for my brain to store them in long term memory, but I know I've experienced this a great many times and always been wrong. You can bet I will never forget the one time I happen to be correct (and the odds are good that I could experience that). And as time passes, I may even lend more credence and importance to that one lucky hit.

This is why people believe in things like lucky charms or rituals. They tend to be hazy about the mundane times ritual X didn't work, but they certainly remember the one time ritual X was followed by a big win at the roulette table.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
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.

I'm glad you see this now. That was what I argued about evolution - it informs our value system. The science [sic] has no morality, but we rational beings reflect on it and draw some of our conclusions about meaning/purpose/value from it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
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.

Agreed. But it informs us as we form our values. The rational mind will not see any intrinsic value in humanity over other species or indeed inorganic matter. It will arbitarily put a value on things so as to keep its conscience happy. Some will value human life very highy; some less so; some not at all.

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

Sorry, I must have mixed you up with another poster, one who said murder/rape, etc. was immoral for all people, not just those who thought it so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
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?

I have my own experiences, as have people I totally trust. The others may or may not be lying - only they know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
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?

I was thinking more of the individual who is aware of an event before it is told him. But the prophetic type of event can be tested, as you say. I have never experienced it. Fortune-tellers abound and I have heard several people confirm some things they foretold. I'm not in a position to test all the possibilities relating to it - vagueness, chance, reality. I believe Satan can give some occult abilities, but I suspect most fortune tellers are just charlatans. As are the Charismatic wonder-workers and prophets we see on our TVs.

The Biblical stuff that is still unfulfilled will be proven by the event - but that will be a bit late in many cases. It would be a good idea however for all here to read the prophecies of the End Times. Maybe they will still be able to repent when they see them:
Luke 21:25 “And there will be signs in the sun, in the moon, and in the stars; and on the earth distress of nations, with perplexity, the sea and the waves roaring; 26 men’s hearts failing them from fear and the expectation of those things which are coming on the earth, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 27 Then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28 Now when these things begin to happen, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption draws near.”

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
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.

Sure, but it does not mean that no one is telling the truth. Which one, if any, is the great issue of life. The honest seeker will find the Truth, when he seeks it with all his heart.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
It is not to be investigated further. Which is why science is only compatible with your world view to a point.

Correct. Science has to know its place - the investigation of the material world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
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.

I doubt if it all has been investigated and debunked. I am pretty sure some of it is still awaiting explanation. Some of that will prove to be natural - but some of it will be unexplainable in natural terms.

He himself used to be a devout Christian, pentecostal of some sort I think.

Yes, he would be familiar with all the psychological manipulation and trickery that goes on there. Even good people get taken in by psychosomatic healing. But he is mistaken if he then assumes there is no spiritual activity, good or evil, in the world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
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?

It is the presupposition of Christian Creation Science because Christians have been changed by God - in our spirits. We know that reality, though we cannot measure it on a detector. We cannot be sceptical about things we know, even if you do not share that knowledge. We have tested it in our innermost being and have found it real.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm glad you see this now. That was what I argued about evolution - it informs our value system. The science [sic] has no morality, but we rational beings reflect on it and draw some of our conclusions about meaning/purpose/value from it.

I see it now? I always saw it. Have we been arguing at cross purposes?

My objection to attacks on the "morality" of evolution have always been on this basis. That truth is without morality in itself- we must make good or evil of it ourselves. This is why the articles which claim that evolution naturally leads to eugenics, to holocausts are nonsense. It takes people with an agenda to use science to justify such things. And I've never yet seen a eugenicist properly justify their misguided views using evolutionary theory.

So why does this topic arise so much in this debate? It seems we're in agreement on it.

wolfsbane wrote: »

It is the presupposition of Christian Creation Science because Christians have been changed by God - in our spirits. We know that reality, though we cannot measure it on a detector. We cannot be sceptical about things we know, even if you do not share that knowledge. We have tested it in our innermost being and have found it real.

I don't doubt that you know what you feel. And yet there are people who believe in what you consider to be total fabrications who are equally certain. That alone warrants scepticism (in both of us) of your "knowledge". In general I think if these things in which you believe are real then they cannot be utterly immune to scientific examination. Even if, as you say, the remit of science is the material world, then any and all interactions of the spirit plane with the material world are within our capacity to examine and model. Do you not agree with this?

I will accept that some of your beliefs are innately non-testable, but certainly not all.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

OK, it seems you would need a much more detailed sign. Is there any combination of circumstances you would consider a likely sign? Our friend bonkey is bold enough to offer one that would go towards his acceptance,

"Dear Lord, if I am to follow this course, please let me see a red sun when I look out the window tomorrow morning, (despite the weather forecast being for cloud cover). Allow a ray of sunlight to fall upon my neighbours black cat, sleeping peacefully on the lawn (despite it never sleeping on a dewy lawn) as a magpie (which aren't typically found in these parts) plays merrily beside it".

Care to specify what would do it for you?

you are missing the point some what

I wouldn't trust me to figure out what is or isn't a sign, period. It doesn't really matter how "detailed" I think the sign is or isn't.

Again we know that the human brain assigns significance to events that have no connection. This has been studied. It would pretty much impossible for me to figure out if me brain is or isn't doing this on my own.

Which is why, expanding on Atomic's post, I would look for external, non-biased, verification. All humans bias things like this, so you need to remove yourself from the equation if you are trying to determine if something actually significant happened.

But that of course is something you never get with this sort of thing. Any time any of this stuff is examined properly unsurprisingly the "results" vanish into thin air.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

That was God's answer for me - a totally unexpected event that dealt with the heart of the issue, delivered just when I needed it.

That is exactly the sort of stuff you shouldn't be paying much heed to because the entire construction of the "sign" is based on your own biases.

kiffer

I'm sure this has been posted before but I like it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f15PNrk94kg

wolfsbane wrote:

I bow to your superior knowledge of cat-magpie behaviour, and amend the example accordingly. Let's try a pied wagtail.

But don't you see the problem?... what appears to be a strange situation to one person... a sign or portent, could in fact be a completely mundane thing. The feeling that it comes from a god or spirit doesn't really lend much weight to the idea when you know more about what's actually going on.

Crucially, you have the principle right - Trying to keep it with in the realm of the physicaly possible but highly improbable. My example was meant to convey that. The timing and prior lifestyle of the cat would be a factor too.

But cutting to the chase, any 'sign' would need to be impressed on one's mind as being from God as well as having apparent meaning, or be an undeniable exposure of a fact until then unknown. Subsequent events would also confirm the rightness of the message. That has been my experience.

I don't want to go round in circles with this, but let me give an example from my life: Example Snipped

Hum... seems like you gave the issue plenty of thought, and then there was a coincidence/chance observation in the paper...

Much like a maths/other such problem that you suddenly solve in the shower, the mind is often working on things in the back ground, you shouldn't be surprised when something external triggers a seemingly unrelated idea or decision.

wolfsbane

kiffer wrote: »

I'm sure this has been posted before but I like it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f15PNrk94kg

But don't you see the problem?... what appears to be a strange situation to one person... a sign or portent, could in fact be a completely mundane thing. The feeling that it comes from a god or spirit doesn't really lend much weight to the idea when you know more about what's actually going on.



Hum... seems like you gave the issue plenty of thought, and then there was a coincidence/chance observation in the paper...

Much like a maths/other such problem that you suddenly solve in the shower, the mind is often working on things in the back ground, you shouldn't be surprised when something external triggers a seemingly unrelated idea or decision.

I understand what you - and Wickie - are saying. No combination of events, however improbable, would make you consider them a sign.

I think that very irrational, and concure with bonkey that some combinations are so improbable that at least one should give them serious consideration as being a sign.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I'm glad you see this now. That was what I argued about evolution - it informs our value system. The science [sic] has no morality, but we rational beings reflect on it and draw some of our conclusions about meaning/purpose/value from it.
I see it now? I always saw it. Have we been arguing at cross purposes?

My objection to attacks on the "morality" of evolution have always been on this basis. That truth is without morality in itself- we must make good or evil of it ourselves. This is why the articles which claim that evolution naturally leads to eugenics, to holocausts are nonsense. It takes people with an agenda to use science to justify such things. And I've never yet seen a eugenicist properly justify their misguided views using evolutionary theory.

So why does this topic arise so much in this debate? It seems we're in agreement on it.

Not really. Only that the theory says nothing in itself. But if the theory is true, that informs us that man is not a sacrosanct being, one we are obliged to love as ourselves. He is just another bit of material in this universe, of no more worth than any other bit. We may invent a value for him, to suit our genetically conditioned emotions, but our rational ability tells us he is without objective value or purpose. That makes evolution a very dangerous idea.

I don't doubt that you know what you feel. And yet there are people who believe in what you consider to be total fabrications who are equally certain. That alone warrants scepticism (in both of us) of your "knowledge". In general I think if these things in which you believe are real then they cannot be utterly immune to scientific examination. Even if, as you say, the remit of science is the material world, then any and all interactions of the spirit plane with the material world are within our capacity to examine and model. Do you not agree with this?

I will accept that some of your beliefs are innately non-testable, but certainly not all.

Yes, there are interactions we can test - Design, the Flood, for example - but most of the individual modern cases have already happened before we can do a 'before & after' test.

If you had a persistent medical problem that did not respond to all medical interventions, and you left off treating it and instead prayed God to heal it for you, and it disappeared - would you not think it likely to be answered prayer, even if you could not prove it to anyone else? And if such things had happened several times in your life, would you not be justified in thinking them more than coincidence? Sure, there is spontaneous remission as a logical possibility, but what about the probabilities?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I think that very irrational, and concure with bonkey that some combinations are so improbable that at least one should give them serious consideration as being a sign.

But again that is the point. The combinations are only "improbable" when you assume they are the only things that can happen. You see a black cat, a magpie and a red sun.

But how many things would you consider to be a sign if you saw them. Thousands I would say. So instead of a black cat you spill some salt and you still think that is a sign. Or a mirror breaks. Or you accidentaly walk under a ladder.

Despite your claims that these signs are specific they really aren't. You are wondering about a particular doctrine and you happen to read about another church that practices that doctrine who recently were joined by someone you don't like.

This is a sign because your brain makes it a sign. It signals that random event out from all the other billions of random events you experience that day as having some significance because it matches a specific pattern you are already looking for.

If that had happened a day earlier your brain would have simply ignored it as being significant.

The odds that this exact thing would happen are astronomical but the point is that you don't need that one specific thing to happen. There are a whole host of other things that could have happened that your brain would have also considered a sign to do something.

This is the over all point that you are some what missing, what we feel are specific occurances aren't really, it is simply that our brain only notices out of the trillions of very unlikely things that happen to us every day/week/year when they trigger a specific mental pattern, ie when we are looking for them already.

These discussions always get bogged down in the likelihood that such and such event would happen, when in fact that isn't the important bit. It was ridiculously unlikely that you would read about that guy you know at the same time as you were wondering about a particular doctrine. But it is also ridiculously unlikely that I would go shopping in Tescos yesterday at exactly the right time to see my old school teacher buying her shopping. A sign? No, not unless I was looking for one. Or that I was thinking about an old school friend on the bus last week and just at that very moment someone said the name out to someone else on the bus. Freaky. But only freaky because I noticed it and my brain went "woohoo"

If I had been asking a god or nature or something for some sign to do something or not do something I might very well have thought that these events are supposed to mean something. But since I wasn't I have no reason to think that. But they still happened.

Random events that cause our brains to spasm with pattern matching happen all the time. Each is ridiculously unlikely but then every we experience billions of things a day, every waking second we are bombarded with events that each have a very small likelihood of happening exactly the way they just happened.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Because such experiences are not natural occurances, but spiritual in origin. Given by spirit beings. They do not feel compelled to to register in tests, unlike electricity, magnetism, etc.
But they are observable. Natural or supernatural is irrelevant. A thing can be observed or it cannot. If it can't be observed then nobody actually knows about it. If it can be observed, it can be tested. A test for prescience, for example, is nothing more complex or obtrusive than looking at the premonition and comparing it to the outcome. These things either work or they do not, but for them to be real they must be testable in some sense.

We could certainly compare a prediction with an outcome. The individual who experiences prescience does that. He/she tests it.

But for proof that you and I would accept, we must know of their prediction before it comes to pass. And it would need to be specific enough that chance would make it very unlikely - predicting a drought in Kenya for 2010 would not qualify. Predicting one in Ireland for 2010 just might.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
All these are material, not spiritual. We can manipulate material things. Spirits manipulate us, if given the chance.
How do you know this? How can you verify this?

The Bible tells me so, and I have experience of temptation to match that. I cannot verify it, as it is in the spiritual realm.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
So if a man told you he had been convinced his brother in Australia had died hours before anyone told him, you say he must be lying/mistaken/the victim of a chance emotion coinciding with the event? No chance he might be right?
Of course there's a chance. But it's far far more likely to be coincidence. There's no reason to assume that the unlikeliest case is true without evidence, otherwise we're compelled to believe an almost infinite number of very unlikely things.

People have a "bad feeling" about people they know and care about frequently. I do it myself all the time- I'm a worrier. Most of the time, I find my friend or partner is okay and so I dismiss the feeling. I can remember only one or two such events properly now as they were not important enough for my brain to store them in long term memory, but I know I've experienced this a great many times and always been wrong. You can bet I will never forget the one time I happen to be correct (and the odds are good that I could experience that). And as time passes, I may even lend more credence and importance to that one lucky hit.

This is why people believe in things like lucky charms or rituals. They tend to be hazy about the mundane times ritual X didn't work, but they certainly remember the one time ritual X was followed by a big win at the roulette table.

What about people who do not get regular bad feelings? That the only time they did was followed by the bad event?

Let me give an instance, not so much of bad feelings/bad event, but of a vision/sad event. A woman whom I know to be level-headed and trustworthy was nursing a sick elderly relative. As she entered the sick room one night to check on the sleeping patient she saw a vision of the patient's sister, who had died a couple of years before. It was not an experience the woman had ever had before - or since - but she calmly withdrew from the room and told her mother. They both pondered on the significance of the vision and thought it might be a forewarning that their friend was to die. And that is what happened, within a couple of weeks.

The facts are: the vision of the patient's dead sister; the near-after death of the patient; and the woman's non-visionary nature. Must it be all coincidence and mental aberration? Or could she be right in thinking it was an omen sent to prepare her and her mum for soon-to-be loss?

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

But again that is the point. The combinations are only "improbable" when you assume they are the only things that can happen. You see a black cat, a magpie and a red sun.

But how many things would you consider to be a sign if you saw them. Thousands I would say. So instead of a black cat you spill some salt and you still think that is a sign. Or a mirror breaks. Or you accidentaly walk under a ladder.

Despite your claims that these signs are specific they really aren't. You are wondering about a particular doctrine and you happen to read about another church that practices that doctrine who recently were joined by someone you don't like.

This is a sign because your brain makes it a sign. It signals that random event out from all the other billions of random events you experience that day as having some significance because it matches a specific pattern you are already looking for.

If that had happened a day earlier your brain would have simply ignored it as being significant.

The odds that this exact thing would happen are astronomical but the point is that you don't need that one specific thing to happen. There are a whole host of other things that could have happened that your brain would have also considered a sign to do something.

This is the over all point that you are some what missing, what we feel are specific occurances aren't really, it is simply that our brain only notices out of the trillions of very unlikely things that happen to us every day/week/year when they trigger a specific mental pattern, ie when we are looking for them already.

These discussions always get bogged down in the likelihood that such and such event would happen, when in fact that isn't the important bit. It was ridiculously unlikely that you would read about that guy you know at the same time as you were wondering about a particular doctrine. But it is also ridiculously unlikely that I would go shopping in Tescos yesterday at exactly the right time to see my old school teacher buying her shopping. A sign? No, not unless I was looking for one. Or that I was thinking about an old school friend on the bus last week and just at that very moment someone said the name out to someone else on the bus. Freaky. But only freaky because I noticed it and my brain went "woohoo"

If I had been asking a god or nature or something for some sign to do something or not do something I might very well have thought that these events are supposed to mean something. But since I wasn't I have no reason to think that. But they still happened.

Random events that cause our brains to spasm with pattern matching happen all the time. Each is ridiculously unlikely but then every we experience billions of things a day, every waking second we are bombarded with events that each have a very small likelihood of happening exactly the way they just happened.

I was asking for guidance about the doctrine. If the newspaper carried a big story about some sex scandal, or the host of other things they do carry each day, that would have meant nothing to me. But hey, the denomination promoting the very doctrine in question publish just at the right time a statement demonstrating - to me especially, who has information of the guy - how flakey they are. I don't see that repeated daily, weekly, nor in the years since.

If I prayed that God would show me to take course A or course B by throwing a series of either 100 in row heads or 100 alternating heads and tails, and I got it - would that be my brain spasming with pattern matching? Is there any combination you would consider a real answer?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I was asking for guidance about the doctrine. If the newspaper carried a big story about some sex scandal, or the host of other things they do carry each day, that would have meant nothing to me.

That is the point. There are potentially hundreds of thousands of pieces of information your brain digested that day and in them plenty of weird and random things happened which you either didn't notice or ignored. In fact the vast majority of events are random to some degree or another.

It was your brain that pattern matched the ones that it determined were significant to what you were already thinking about so that you actually noticed this particular one, and discarded all the rest as insignificant so you didn't even notice them.

So from your perspective it appeared as if this one weird event took place that day, and you are amazed that that would happen so you think it must have been the work of some benevolent agent and you start filling in the blanks as to how it is connected to what you were thinking about, thinking what does it mean.

But this is simply your brain filtering information. We do this all day everyday.

We only notice it when something pops our interest subconsciously. But if it wasn't this newspaper article it would be something else. The newspaper article is hardly a good example of a clear sign, look at the mental gymnastics you have to go through to even make that into a sign in the first place (someone you don't like joined a church that has a similar doctrine to the one you were considered ... hardly a burning bush speaking to you is it).

It was a random event that your brain pattern matched because it has some connection to what you were thinking about that day

Again, we know our brains do this and you can have a lot of fun tricking the human brain into doing this like this. It is how a lot of magic tricks work and how a lot of "psychics" make their money from throwing out random things and letting the customer's brain fill in the blanks themselves.

MatthewVII

wolfsbane wrote: »

Let me give an instance, not so much of bad feelings/bad event, but of a vision/sad event. A woman whom I know to be level-headed and trustworthy was nursing a sick elderly relative. As she entered the sick room one night to check on the sleeping patient she saw a vision of the patient's sister, who had died a couple of years before. It was not an experience the woman had ever had before - or since - but she calmly withdrew from the room and told her mother. They both pondered on the significance of the vision and thought it might be a forewarning that their friend was to die. And that is what happened, within a couple of weeks.

The facts are: the vision of the patient's dead sister; the near-after death of the patient; and the woman's non-visionary nature. Must it be all coincidence and mental aberration? Or could she be right in thinking it was an omen sent to prepare her and her mum for soon-to-be loss?

Okay, let's break this down

1) The patient is elderly
2) The patient is sick
3) The patient is in a compromised enough position that one-on-one care is needed

Already we can see that this patient is likely to have a poor outcome from whatever it is they are suffering from, and a death really shouldn't be a surprise, or unlikely in any way. So, for this "sign" to really have any validity, there must be some sort of temporal relationship between the sign and the event. According to you, the death happened "within a couple of weeks". If the death had occurred the instance the vision was seen, or just after as the person in question walked into the room, it may have been of some significance. But a few weeks? That hardly seems special or relevant. Is it so strange to think that the caretaker may have been pondering the fact that the patient was in poor health, thought of death, was reminded of the patient's sister who had also died, and had a flashing visual hallucination? Transient visual hallucinations are incredibly common, isolated events with no real background reason, although in this case if the caretaker had been attending to the patient for long periods of time they may have been quite tired, which increases the chance of it happening.

So the real problem here is finding the link between the vision and the event. Taking into account the time gap and the ambiguity of the vision (just because she saw the patient's sister didn't mean death was the only link one could draw) I would have to say that this vision was not prophetic.

Zombrex

MatthewVII wrote: »

So the real problem here is finding the link between the vision and the event.

That is a key point to remember. Like the death of this person, or wolfsbane's doctrine issue, the actual link between the event given significance and the sign it is supposed to represent is hugely influenced by the person coming up with the link in the first place.

Again the human mind likes to find patterns and links, particularly if we have already assumed there is one. We fill in the blanks between two unrelated things.

There is also some self fulfilling If the two people had decided the "sign" meant something that didn't happen they would simply conclude that they interpreted the sign wrong, not that it wasn't a sign in the first place. When someone has already concluded something is a sign they will be searching for a meaning. Finding one is not surprising.

robindch

Ham was recently in England and seems to have forgotten to take home a creationist "astrophysicist" who was subsequently invited onto the BBC to take part in an "examination of creationism". Unfortunately, it seems that he didn't realize that this meant that there was going to be any qualified scientists there, so when one showed up Ham's astrophysicist squealed home to Uncle Ham who released a blog statement accusing the BBC of lying and deceit.

More entertainingly, Ham also calls the BBC "obviously anti-Christian". And since the BBC's employees don't believe in god, they must therefore have no ethical problem with behaving deceitfully either!

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

AtomicHorror said:

Not really. Only that the theory says nothing in itself. But if the theory is true, that informs us that man is not a sacrosanct being, one we are obliged to love as ourselves. He is just another bit of material in this universe, of no more worth than any other bit. We may invent a value for him, to suit our genetically conditioned emotions, but our rational ability tells us he is without objective value or purpose. That makes evolution a very dangerous idea.

But evolution does not in itself falsify your concepts of what makes humans sacrosanct. Remember that it is only a theory that explains the emergence of variation. The origin of species, including humans. It is mute as to the origin of life or the existence of the soul or of the divine.

Supposing it did throw all of that out, then as I've said before, knowing what life is does not change the fact that we value it. No more than knowing that a loved one is imperfect us can cause us to stop loving them. These things are not choices, even if we can evaluate them in a rational light. If anything, understanding the great rarity of our kind of life, the long struggle that it has taken to reach this point, confers quite a profound new respect. Life has a quality to it not previously imagined- a complexity in time and space of quite stunning beauty.

What I think it does force us to question is our valuation of the lives of other species. The seperation between us is no so clear.

I question why the likes of J C insist on bringing morality into the argument on the veracity of evolution. As a statement of the stakes, perhaps it is relevant. But as I've just said, those are not the stakes regarding the theory of evolution. The real stakes for you guys is that it falsifies a literal reading of Genesis and, to your mind, undermines the inerrancy of the Bible. So talk of Hitler and eugenics is a bit of a cheap trick in my view.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, there are interactions we can test - Design, the Flood, for example - but most of the individual modern cases have already happened before we can do a 'before & after' test.

If you had a persistent medical problem that did not respond to all medical interventions, and you left off treating it and instead prayed God to heal it for you, and it disappeared - would you not think it likely to be answered prayer, even if you could not prove it to anyone else? And if such things had happened several times in your life, would you not be justified in thinking them more than coincidence? Sure, there is spontaneous remission as a logical possibility, but what about the probabilities?

Well there's a thing. We can test that, can't we? We can compare the rate of what appears to be spontaneous remission between those who pray for healing and those who do not. In fact, as I understand it, similar studies have been done before. I'm sure you can guess the outcome.