Great testimony Oldbear83

Sam: "Presumably the basic facts of the accident and his survival were documented in the incident report. "

If TS doubted my survival, I'd consider that evidence for supernatural effects.

Thanks Wichita

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The problem I see, TS, is that when evidence of supernatural phenomenae is presented, it gets rejected as 'system error' or 'outlier', due to the inability to reproduce the effect under human-controlled conditions. That is, every attempt I have seen to quantify supernatural effects is judged by natural conditions, and so it becomes impossible by definition.

---

If something has a natural explanation, it no longer qualifies for a supernatural explanation. Give me an example of an empirically documented phenomenon that can only be assigned a supernatural cause.

---

That's just my point. If something is really supernatural, you cannot apply the rules of nature to it. You deny anything which is not natural, precisely because it exists outside the rules of nature.

---

Why would you automatically attribute something unknown as being supernatural? History is full of examples where what primitive people once believed was supernatural was later proven governed by natural laws. There isn't any example of a phenomenon that has described by natural laws that was later attributed to, or proven to be supernatural.

---

Hypothetically, if a supernatural voice had told OB83 to turn off his car engine, what would the evidence look like?

---

You would need extraordinary evidence to substantiate such a claim. Evidence that rules out coincidental and anecdotal explanation.

---

... which by definition makes the event natural rather than supernatural.

I noted in my two examples that many who do not believe would discard the experiences as coincidence. I understand that, especially since it was my experience and not your own.

But I have had a lot of such coincidences, so many that I am compelled to conclude either that I am seeing things I want to see which do not actually exist, or I am experiencing unusual effects in my world which do not fit nominal explanations. I'm not talking about the coincidence of a strong of traffic lights all going green at the right time for me, or red at just the wrong time. I am talking about a series of strange events which may be explained in each single example, but as part of a whole move the needle well beyond 'outlier' status.

For example, I happen to have a rare and incurable cancer. It used to be considered fatal in almost all cases, for two reasons - it was tumors which form and grow in the abdominal cavity and do not affect blood chemistry or organ functions until they metastasize, at which time the tumors attack all internal organs basically at once; and because the growth of the tumors was not understood because there were not enough surviving patients to build a database on response to medicine.

I just happened to pass a kidney stone in 2006, which just happened to rupture my appendix. In the surgery to remove my appendix, the surgeon, who just happened to have privileges to M.D. Anderson, discovered the growth and removed what he could find to do a biopsy. I was fortunate because there just happened to be a treatment for the preventing tumor growth, which was useless unless the cancer was discovered early ... which only happened in less than 2% of this cancer, due to no obvious warning signs.

You can look at that and shrug, but it's an interesting string of 'coincidences' to me.

Or consider this: I dated my wife back in the late 1980s. Her dad got sick and she abruptly left to go back to Hong Kong to help take are of him. I had no idea what was going on (we had only just started dating and my wife was and is a very private person, not willing to share a family crisis that early ) and did not see her for years. I lost my job in 1994, and was walking into my apartment from swimming when she called, She had returned to the US and just happened to find my phone number and wondered if it was still good. If I had not lost my job, I would have been working when she called. If I had gone swimming later I would have missed the call, or if I had finished earlier I would have missed the call while I showered. It just happened that I was right there when the phone rang (this was pre-cell phone for me). My wife had gone through a bad divorce before, and only dated me because she had decided we would not get married. She later just happened to decide to marry me.

Again, you can look at that and shrug, but I see a lot of weird things happening. Almost as if it was meant to be.

I could tell you about the time I was robbed in 1989 and the robber was about to shoot me, then suddenly looked to his right as if he saw something, and instead ran off. 'Coincidence'? Maybe, and by itself OK, but as part of everything else it looks like part of a pattern to me.

Look, I get it that it does not make sense. That's the whole thing about supernatural stuff. If it's real, it won't follow logical rules or be empirical. It does not hurt my feelings if you don't believe, but there are many things out there which people will never accept if they demand the world always be rational and logical.

---

Just curious. How does passing a kidney stone rupture one's appendix?

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The problem I see, TS, is that when evidence of supernatural phenomenae is presented, it gets rejected as 'system error' or 'outlier', due to the inability to reproduce the effect under human-controlled conditions. That is, every attempt I have seen to quantify supernatural effects is judged by natural conditions, and so it becomes impossible by definition.

---

If something has a natural explanation, it no longer qualifies for a supernatural explanation. Give me an example of an empirically documented phenomenon that can only be assigned a supernatural cause.

---

That's just my point. If something is really supernatural, you cannot apply the rules of nature to it. You deny anything which is not natural, precisely because it exists outside the rules of nature.

---

Why would you automatically attribute something unknown as being supernatural? History is full of examples where what primitive people once believed was supernatural was later proven governed by natural laws. There isn't any example of a phenomenon that has described by natural laws that was later attributed to, or proven to be supernatural.

---

Hypothetically, if a supernatural voice had told OB83 to turn off his car engine, what would the evidence look like?

---

Objective empirical evidence. Evidence better than Kavanaugh's accuser had.

---

We have OB83's witness account. Presumably the basic facts of the accident and his survival were documented in the incident report. Again, hypothetically, is this what you would expect if supernatural intervention had taken place? Or does it go against what you would expect? If so, how?

I'm not asking what it would take to convince you. I'm asking what you would actually expect to see.

---

Evidence beyond question or doubt.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The problem I see, TS, is that when evidence of supernatural phenomenae is presented, it gets rejected as 'system error' or 'outlier', due to the inability to reproduce the effect under human-controlled conditions. That is, every attempt I have seen to quantify supernatural effects is judged by natural conditions, and so it becomes impossible by definition.

---

If something has a natural explanation, it no longer qualifies for a supernatural explanation. Give me an example of an empirically documented phenomenon that can only be assigned a supernatural cause.

---

That's just my point. If something is really supernatural, you cannot apply the rules of nature to it. You deny anything which is not natural, precisely because it exists outside the rules of nature.

---

Why would you automatically attribute something unknown as being supernatural? History is full of examples where what primitive people once believed was supernatural was later proven governed by natural laws. There isn't any example of a phenomenon that has described by natural laws that was later attributed to, or proven to be supernatural.

---

Hypothetically, if a supernatural voice had told OB83 to turn off his car engine, what would the evidence look like?

---

Objective empirical evidence. Evidence better than Kavanaugh's accuser had.

---

We have OB83's witness account. Presumably the basic facts of the accident and his survival were documented in the incident report. Again, hypothetically, is this what you would expect if supernatural intervention had taken place? Or does it go against what you would expect? If so, how?

I'm not asking what it would take to convince you. I'm asking what you would actually expect to see.

---

Evidence beyond question or doubt.

---

so, you want to be Saul of Tarsus then?

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The problem I see, TS, is that when evidence of supernatural phenomenae is presented, it gets rejected as 'system error' or 'outlier', due to the inability to reproduce the effect under human-controlled conditions. That is, every attempt I have seen to quantify supernatural effects is judged by natural conditions, and so it becomes impossible by definition.

---

If something has a natural explanation, it no longer qualifies for a supernatural explanation. Give me an example of an empirically documented phenomenon that can only be assigned a supernatural cause.

---

That's just my point. If something is really supernatural, you cannot apply the rules of nature to it. You deny anything which is not natural, precisely because it exists outside the rules of nature.

---

Why would you automatically attribute something unknown as being supernatural? History is full of examples where what primitive people once believed was supernatural was later proven governed by natural laws. There isn't any example of a phenomenon that has described by natural laws that was later attributed to, or proven to be supernatural.

---

Hypothetically, if a supernatural voice had told OB83 to turn off his car engine, what would the evidence look like?

---

Objective empirical evidence. Evidence better than Kavanaugh's accuser had.

---

We have OB83's witness account. Presumably the basic facts of the accident and his survival were documented in the incident report. Again, hypothetically, is this what you would expect if supernatural intervention had taken place? Or does it go against what you would expect? If so, how?

I'm not asking what it would take to convince you. I'm asking what you would actually expect to see.

---

Evidence beyond question or doubt.

---

Happenstance is not proof of God. It's proof that you believe in a magical God.
I believe in the God of love as revealed in Jesus Christ.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The problem I see, TS, is that when evidence of supernatural phenomenae is presented, it gets rejected as 'system error' or 'outlier', due to the inability to reproduce the effect under human-controlled conditions. That is, every attempt I have seen to quantify supernatural effects is judged by natural conditions, and so it becomes impossible by definition.

---

If something has a natural explanation, it no longer qualifies for a supernatural explanation. Give me an example of an empirically documented phenomenon that can only be assigned a supernatural cause.

---

That's just my point. If something is really supernatural, you cannot apply the rules of nature to it. You deny anything which is not natural, precisely because it exists outside the rules of nature.

---

Why would you automatically attribute something unknown as being supernatural? History is full of examples where what primitive people once believed was supernatural was later proven governed by natural laws. There isn't any example of a phenomenon that has described by natural laws that was later attributed to, or proven to be supernatural.

---

Hypothetically, if a supernatural voice had told OB83 to turn off his car engine, what would the evidence look like?

---

You would need extraordinary evidence to substantiate such a claim. Evidence that rules out coincidental and anecdotal explanation.

---

... which by definition makes the event natural rather than supernatural.

I noted in my two examples that many who do not believe would discard the experiences as coincidence. I understand that, especially since it was my experience and not your own.

But I have had a lot of such coincidences, so many that I am compelled to conclude either that I am seeing things I want to see which do not actually exist, or I am experiencing unusual effects in my world which do not fit nominal explanations. I'm not talking about the coincidence of a strong of traffic lights all going green at the right time for me, or red at just the wrong time. I am talking about a series of strange events which may be explained in each single example, but as part of a whole move the needle well beyond 'outlier' status.

For example, I happen to have a rare and incurable cancer. It used to be considered fatal in almost all cases, for two reasons - it was tumors which form and grow in the abdominal cavity and do not affect blood chemistry or organ functions until they metastasize, at which time the tumors attack all internal organs basically at once; and because the growth of the tumors was not understood because there were not enough surviving patients to build a database on response to medicine.

I just happened to pass a kidney stone in 2006, which just happened to rupture my appendix. In the surgery to remove my appendix, the surgeon, who just happened to have privileges to M.D. Anderson, discovered the growth and removed what he could find to do a biopsy. I was fortunate because there just happened to be a treatment for the preventing tumor growth, which was useless unless the cancer was discovered early ... which only happened in less than 2% of this cancer, due to no obvious warning signs.

You can look at that and shrug, but it's an interesting string of 'coincidences' to me.

Or consider this: I dated my wife back in the late 1980s. Her dad got sick and she abruptly left to go back to Hong Kong to help take are of him. I had no idea what was going on (we had only just started dating and my wife was and is a very private person, not willing to share a family crisis that early ) and did not see her for years. I lost my job in 1994, and was walking into my apartment from swimming when she called, She had returned to the US and just happened to find my phone number and wondered if it was still good. If I had not lost my job, I would have been working when she called. If I had gone swimming later I would have missed the call, or if I had finished earlier I would have missed the call while I showered. It just happened that I was right there when the phone rang (this was pre-cell phone for me). My wife had gone through a bad divorce before, and only dated me because she had decided we would not get married. She later just happened to decide to marry me.

Again, you can look at that and shrug, but I see a lot of weird things happening. Almost as if it was meant to be.

I could tell you about the time I was robbed in 1989 and the robber was about to shoot me, then suddenly looked to his right as if he saw something, and instead ran off. 'Coincidence'? Maybe, and by itself OK, but as part of everything else it looks like part of a pattern to me.

Look, I get it that it does not make sense. That's the whole thing about supernatural stuff. If it's real, it won't follow logical rules or be empirical. It does not hurt my feelings if you don't believe, but there are many things out there which people will never accept if they demand the world always be rational and logical.

---

Just curious. How does passing a kidney stone rupture one's appendix?

---

I'm not sure, not being a doctor, but there is a tube which runs from the kidneys to the bladder, and the stone cut the tube along the way. During the night I could not urinate at all, and tried to force pee out, and my best guess is that the pressure hurt my appendix, since it was connected to the colon.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The problem I see, TS, is that when evidence of supernatural phenomenae is presented, it gets rejected as 'system error' or 'outlier', due to the inability to reproduce the effect under human-controlled conditions. That is, every attempt I have seen to quantify supernatural effects is judged by natural conditions, and so it becomes impossible by definition.

---

If something has a natural explanation, it no longer qualifies for a supernatural explanation. Give me an example of an empirically documented phenomenon that can only be assigned a supernatural cause.

---

That's just my point. If something is really supernatural, you cannot apply the rules of nature to it. You deny anything which is not natural, precisely because it exists outside the rules of nature.

---

Why would you automatically attribute something unknown as being supernatural? History is full of examples where what primitive people once believed was supernatural was later proven governed by natural laws. There isn't any example of a phenomenon that has described by natural laws that was later attributed to, or proven to be supernatural.

---

Hypothetically, if a supernatural voice had told OB83 to turn off his car engine, what would the evidence look like?

---

Objective empirical evidence. Evidence better than Kavanaugh's accuser had.

---

We have OB83's witness account. Presumably the basic facts of the accident and his survival were documented in the incident report. Again, hypothetically, is this what you would expect if supernatural intervention had taken place? Or does it go against what you would expect? If so, how?

I'm not asking what it would take to convince you. I'm asking what you would actually expect to see.

---

Evidence beyond question or doubt.

---

I don't understand why a supernatural event would necessarily generate evidence beyond question or doubt. Please explain why that is and what the evidence would be.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The problem I see, TS, is that when evidence of supernatural phenomenae is presented, it gets rejected as 'system error' or 'outlier', due to the inability to reproduce the effect under human-controlled conditions. That is, every attempt I have seen to quantify supernatural effects is judged by natural conditions, and so it becomes impossible by definition.

---

If something has a natural explanation, it no longer qualifies for a supernatural explanation. Give me an example of an empirically documented phenomenon that can only be assigned a supernatural cause.

---

That's just my point. If something is really supernatural, you cannot apply the rules of nature to it. You deny anything which is not natural, precisely because it exists outside the rules of nature.

---

Why would you automatically attribute something unknown as being supernatural? History is full of examples where what primitive people once believed was supernatural was later proven governed by natural laws. There isn't any example of a phenomenon that has described by natural laws that was later attributed to, or proven to be supernatural.

---

Hypothetically, if a supernatural voice had told OB83 to turn off his car engine, what would the evidence look like?

---

Objective empirical evidence. Evidence better than Kavanaugh's accuser had.

---

We have OB83's witness account. Presumably the basic facts of the accident and his survival were documented in the incident report. Again, hypothetically, is this what you would expect if supernatural intervention had taken place? Or does it go against what you would expect? If so, how?

I'm not asking what it would take to convince you. I'm asking what you would actually expect to see.

---

Evidence beyond question or doubt.

---

I don't understand why a supernatural event would necessarily generate evidence beyond question or doubt. Please explain why that is and what the evidence would be.

---

Deanna Laney, an Assemblies of God Christian, said God spoke to her and ordered her to kill her two children. Do you really believe her hearing God's voice and instruction is evidence that God told her to do that?

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The problem I see, TS, is that when evidence of supernatural phenomenae is presented, it gets rejected as 'system error' or 'outlier', due to the inability to reproduce the effect under human-controlled conditions. That is, every attempt I have seen to quantify supernatural effects is judged by natural conditions, and so it becomes impossible by definition.

---

If something has a natural explanation, it no longer qualifies for a supernatural explanation. Give me an example of an empirically documented phenomenon that can only be assigned a supernatural cause.

---

That's just my point. If something is really supernatural, you cannot apply the rules of nature to it. You deny anything which is not natural, precisely because it exists outside the rules of nature.

---

Why would you automatically attribute something unknown as being supernatural? History is full of examples where what primitive people once believed was supernatural was later proven governed by natural laws. There isn't any example of a phenomenon that has described by natural laws that was later attributed to, or proven to be supernatural.

---

Hypothetically, if a supernatural voice had told OB83 to turn off his car engine, what would the evidence look like?

---

Objective empirical evidence. Evidence better than Kavanaugh's accuser had.

---

We have OB83's witness account. Presumably the basic facts of the accident and his survival were documented in the incident report. Again, hypothetically, is this what you would expect if supernatural intervention had taken place? Or does it go against what you would expect? If so, how?

I'm not asking what it would take to convince you. I'm asking what you would actually expect to see.

---

Evidence beyond question or doubt.

---

I don't understand why a supernatural event would necessarily generate evidence beyond question or doubt. Please explain why that is and what the evidence would be.

---

Deanna Laney, an Assemblies of God Christian, said God spoke to her and ordered her to kill her two children. Do you really believe her hearing God's voice and instruction is evidence that God told her to do that?

---

This is where Scripture matters, TS.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The problem I see, TS, is that when evidence of supernatural phenomenae is presented, it gets rejected as 'system error' or 'outlier', due to the inability to reproduce the effect under human-controlled conditions. That is, every attempt I have seen to quantify supernatural effects is judged by natural conditions, and so it becomes impossible by definition.

---

If something has a natural explanation, it no longer qualifies for a supernatural explanation. Give me an example of an empirically documented phenomenon that can only be assigned a supernatural cause.

---

That's just my point. If something is really supernatural, you cannot apply the rules of nature to it. You deny anything which is not natural, precisely because it exists outside the rules of nature.

---

Why would you automatically attribute something unknown as being supernatural? History is full of examples where what primitive people once believed was supernatural was later proven governed by natural laws. There isn't any example of a phenomenon that has described by natural laws that was later attributed to, or proven to be supernatural.

---

Hypothetically, if a supernatural voice had told OB83 to turn off his car engine, what would the evidence look like?

---

Objective empirical evidence. Evidence better than Kavanaugh's accuser had.

---

We have OB83's witness account. Presumably the basic facts of the accident and his survival were documented in the incident report. Again, hypothetically, is this what you would expect if supernatural intervention had taken place? Or does it go against what you would expect? If so, how?

I'm not asking what it would take to convince you. I'm asking what you would actually expect to see.

---

Evidence beyond question or doubt.

---

I don't understand why a supernatural event would necessarily generate evidence beyond question or doubt. Please explain why that is and what the evidence would be.

---

Deanna Laney, an Assemblies of God Christian, said God spoke to her and ordered her to kill her two children. Do you really believe her hearing God's voice and instruction is evidence that God told her to do that?

---

I'd like to answer that, but I don't want to get sidetracked. How about answering my question first?

Judges 10:17

Genesis 22

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

I was looking at another thread where a poster was talking about his interpretation of the bible. This got me thinking about what do others here think about some popular questions people are asked about Christian faith. What are your specific beliefs to these questions?

1. Is the whole bible inspired by God? If not, how do you choose which parts to follow and ignore?
2. Do you believe Jesus is a divine figure or was simply a man?
3. Can you lose your salvation?
4. What is your view on the rapture?
5. Do you believe in original sin?
6. Do you think the world is roughly 6,000 years old?
7. Do you believe in evolution?
8. Do you believe in the Trinity?
9. Do you believe in the miracles of the bible?
10. Why do you believe in Christianity?

Also, is there any other question that you would like to know about other believers here that I have left off?

---

.
When answering any of these questions I learned from philosophy and semantics that premises and definitions are essential to answers.
Shall I delineate those for you?

---

Why start now?

---

I do every time. You don't like your premise challenged
Here's one "God is all powerful."
The power controlling all powers - wind, rain, tornadoes, gravity, motion, etc.
Prove your premise using the tools with we study and learn about these powers.
Use physics, chemistry, math, and biology.
You cannot do it. I have not even tried. Your "premise" is indefensible in the real world.

---

you can't prove what caused a rock to roll down a hill , something much easier to do and yet, you try to send Sam on this fool's errand.

You continue to drive the clown car.

---

Sure I can prove it why it rolled down the hill gravity and erosion and water and rain.
He framed the question "WHO" tipped it? Who is the wrong premise for the question. He can't defend why he asked the question in that form.
You asked the right question "WHAT caused it?"
He asked "Who tipped it?"
It's a nonsensical question for science - in this question we turn geology and physics not the Bible.
Our premise matters

---

Who and why are philosophical questions. How and what are scientific questions. Your question is indeed nonsensical because it asks for scientific proof of a philosophical idea. It's like demanding proof that 2 + 2 = purple.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The problem I see, TS, is that when evidence of supernatural phenomenae is presented, it gets rejected as 'system error' or 'outlier', due to the inability to reproduce the effect under human-controlled conditions. That is, every attempt I have seen to quantify supernatural effects is judged by natural conditions, and so it becomes impossible by definition.

---

If something has a natural explanation, it no longer qualifies for a supernatural explanation. Give me an example of an empirically documented phenomenon that can only be assigned a supernatural cause.

---

That's just my point. If something is really supernatural, you cannot apply the rules of nature to it. You deny anything which is not natural, precisely because it exists outside the rules of nature.

---

Why would you automatically attribute something unknown as being supernatural? History is full of examples where what primitive people once believed was supernatural was later proven governed by natural laws. There isn't any example of a phenomenon that has described by natural laws that was later attributed to, or proven to be supernatural.

---

Hypothetically, if a supernatural voice had told OB83 to turn off his car engine, what would the evidence look like?

---

Objective empirical evidence. Evidence better than Kavanaugh's accuser had.

---

We have OB83's witness account. Presumably the basic facts of the accident and his survival were documented in the incident report. Again, hypothetically, is this what you would expect if supernatural intervention had taken place? Or does it go against what you would expect? If so, how?

I'm not asking what it would take to convince you. I'm asking what you would actually expect to see.

---

Evidence beyond question or doubt.

---

I don't understand why a supernatural event would necessarily generate evidence beyond question or doubt. Please explain why that is and what the evidence would be.

---

Deanna Laney, an Assemblies of God Christian, said God spoke to her and ordered her to kill her two children. Do you really believe her hearing God's voice and instruction is evidence that God told her to do that?

---

This is where Scripture matters, TS.

---

TS knows this. He chooses to be openly hostile towards Christianity. He is far from seeking or even agnostic.

And who were the Ammonites? Don't pretend they were innocent, peace-loving people, Waco.

Waco1947 said:

---

Genesis 22

---

Context is a good thing, Waco. Give it a try sometime?

TexasScientist said:

---

Deanna Laney, an Assemblies of God Christian, said God spoke to her and ordered her to kill her two children. Do you really believe her hearing God's voice and instruction is evidence that God told her to do that?

---

If you discovered that Christianity was true, would you become a Christian?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Genesis 22

---

Context is a good thing, Waco. Give it a try sometime?

---

One is a fable and one is real?

BaylorFTW said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Deanna Laney, an Assemblies of God Christian, said God spoke to her and ordered her to kill her two children. Do you really believe her hearing God's voice and instruction is evidence that God told her to do that?

---

If you discovered that Christianity was true, would you become a Christian?

---

Of course.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The problem I see, TS, is that when evidence of supernatural phenomenae is presented, it gets rejected as 'system error' or 'outlier', due to the inability to reproduce the effect under human-controlled conditions. That is, every attempt I have seen to quantify supernatural effects is judged by natural conditions, and so it becomes impossible by definition.

---

If something has a natural explanation, it no longer qualifies for a supernatural explanation. Give me an example of an empirically documented phenomenon that can only be assigned a supernatural cause.

---

That's just my point. If something is really supernatural, you cannot apply the rules of nature to it. You deny anything which is not natural, precisely because it exists outside the rules of nature.

---

Why would you automatically attribute something unknown as being supernatural? History is full of examples where what primitive people once believed was supernatural was later proven governed by natural laws. There isn't any example of a phenomenon that has described by natural laws that was later attributed to, or proven to be supernatural.

---

Hypothetically, if a supernatural voice had told OB83 to turn off his car engine, what would the evidence look like?

---

Objective empirical evidence. Evidence better than Kavanaugh's accuser had.

---

We have OB83's witness account. Presumably the basic facts of the accident and his survival were documented in the incident report. Again, hypothetically, is this what you would expect if supernatural intervention had taken place? Or does it go against what you would expect? If so, how?

I'm not asking what it would take to convince you. I'm asking what you would actually expect to see.

---

Evidence beyond question or doubt.

---

I don't understand why a supernatural event would necessarily generate evidence beyond question or doubt. Please explain why that is and what the evidence would be.

---

Deanna Laney, an Assemblies of God Christian, said God spoke to her and ordered her to kill her two children. Do you really believe her hearing God's voice and instruction is evidence that God told her to do that?

---

This is where Scripture matters, TS.

---

Which part of scripture? The scripture that condones stoning, raping, pillaging, and plundering? The near sacrifice of Isaac? Or, thou shalt not kill?

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The problem I see, TS, is that when evidence of supernatural phenomenae is presented, it gets rejected as 'system error' or 'outlier', due to the inability to reproduce the effect under human-controlled conditions. That is, every attempt I have seen to quantify supernatural effects is judged by natural conditions, and so it becomes impossible by definition.

---

If something has a natural explanation, it no longer qualifies for a supernatural explanation. Give me an example of an empirically documented phenomenon that can only be assigned a supernatural cause.

---

That's just my point. If something is really supernatural, you cannot apply the rules of nature to it. You deny anything which is not natural, precisely because it exists outside the rules of nature.

---

Why would you automatically attribute something unknown as being supernatural? History is full of examples where what primitive people once believed was supernatural was later proven governed by natural laws. There isn't any example of a phenomenon that has described by natural laws that was later attributed to, or proven to be supernatural.

---

Hypothetically, if a supernatural voice had told OB83 to turn off his car engine, what would the evidence look like?

---

Objective empirical evidence. Evidence better than Kavanaugh's accuser had.

---

We have OB83's witness account. Presumably the basic facts of the accident and his survival were documented in the incident report. Again, hypothetically, is this what you would expect if supernatural intervention had taken place? Or does it go against what you would expect? If so, how?

I'm not asking what it would take to convince you. I'm asking what you would actually expect to see.

---

Evidence beyond question or doubt.

---

I don't understand why a supernatural event would necessarily generate evidence beyond question or doubt. Please explain why that is and what the evidence would be.

---

Deanna Laney, an Assemblies of God Christian, said God spoke to her and ordered her to kill her two children. Do you really believe her hearing God's voice and instruction is evidence that God told her to do that?

---

This is where Scripture matters, TS.

---

Which part of scripture? The scripture that condones stoning, raping, pillaging, and plundering? The near sacrifice of Isaac? Or, thou shalt not kill?

---

TS, you've read on here time and time again regarding the differences in the OT and the NT. Be an intelligent participant in the conversation rather than the antagonist.

When an intelligent person plays dumb, it just doesn't work well.

I am assuming that TS is serious, so here is the version that Jesus taught.



Matthew 5:38-48 New International Version (NIV)

Eye for Eye

38 "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Love for Enemies

43 "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

TexasScientist said:

---

MoneyBear said:

---

Radioactive dating has its flaws and they are recorded:
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/radioactive-dating-failure/

When you take into account the way that non-standard events (floods or volcanos for example) affect the reliability of dating, it calls a lot of this into question. I believe that the flood of Genesis 6 does a lot to harmonize your fossil record and stratification in the face of a young Earth belief.
https://amazingdiscoveries.org/C-deception-fossils_petrified_trees_catastrophism


You don't have to agree with me and I suspect you won't. Just wanted to share.

---

I'm surprised you cite Andrew Snelling. This guy has been totally discredited as a charaltan. He has sold himself out to the ICR/AIG (Institute for Creation Research/Answers in Genesis) who funded his paper and employs him for pseudo science. Snelling depends on the ignorance of his readers regarding geology, specifically geochronology, which entails various methods of dating rocks. His paper, written for the ICR on Mt Ngauruhoe New Zealand volcanics, is completely unscientific for far too many reasons to adequately discuss here. But, here are some of the significant points. He completely ingnores that the magma fueling these volcanics is sourced from the tectonic interplay between oceanic sediments, subducted crust, and the upper mantle. Geologists have thoroughly debunked his paper and have showed that the results actually contradict his conclusions. The K-Ar method he used is not valid for this type of magma because it does not correct for excess Ar in xenoliths. Other methods obtain accurate dates such as using one isotopic system (U-Pb) to date the rocks and others such as (Sr-Rb, Sm-Nd, Lu-Hf) to sequence magma origins and ascent. Because lava found in volcanic island ars are known to contain excess Ar and other inherited material, the K-Ar method he used is not expected to yield the real age. He simply didn't use modern methods to evaluate his samples. His samples were sent to a laboratory without instrumentation sufficiently precise enough to analyze young (less than 2 Ma) samples. He used the whole rock K-Ar method, which cannot reliably account for excess Ar and inherited material. Even at that, he fails to point out, with this method 1/2 of his samples yielded a correct date. Through distortion of data, clever characterizations and misrepresentations, and use of known unreliable methods that cannot obtain reliably accurate dates, he has created a paper to support what ICR paid him to produce. Even his Pb isochron data shows the mantle began to separate into different parts, such as continental crust, upper and lower mantle, reflecting the mantle and crust have been decaying radioactively for nearly 4 billion years - something totally at odds with his young earth idea. He should have used commonly employed precision geochronometers Ar-Ar and U-Th methods which would yield accurate results.

Snelling has a Jekyll and Hyde career. When he was not writing papers for the ICR, he wrote or contributed to papers where he dated Australian uranium ore deposits at 1-3 million years in age, to various regional metamorphic rock ages from 420 million years to over 1.8 billion years in age. He has one standard for science, and another for creationist audiences.

---

My apologies for throwing out a documented charlatan. I don't know the guy personally but I couldn't find the links that I wanted for that point. I sat through a lecture by a guy named Brad Harrub years ago and also had a subscription to his magazine (Think). Most of his stuff is behind a pay wall though so I linked this guy. My bad.

Did you look at the other 2? Kent Hovind (although I disagree with some of his theology) always had some interesting points on the topic.

As I said initially, I don't expect to be able to change your mind because I know I wouldn't change mine. Regardless how far back you go with science there comes a point where you have to say that you believe something happened for which you don't have sufficient testable/repeatable evidence. At that point, it's faith and faith is not a scientific concept but a spiritual one.

Short of a time machine or the second coming, neither of us has the necessary "proof" to back our claim sufficient to satisfy the other...

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The problem I see, TS, is that when evidence of supernatural phenomenae is presented, it gets rejected as 'system error' or 'outlier', due to the inability to reproduce the effect under human-controlled conditions. That is, every attempt I have seen to quantify supernatural effects is judged by natural conditions, and so it becomes impossible by definition.

---

If something has a natural explanation, it no longer qualifies for a supernatural explanation. Give me an example of an empirically documented phenomenon that can only be assigned a supernatural cause.

---

That's just my point. If something is really supernatural, you cannot apply the rules of nature to it. You deny anything which is not natural, precisely because it exists outside the rules of nature.

---

Why would you automatically attribute something unknown as being supernatural? History is full of examples where what primitive people once believed was supernatural was later proven governed by natural laws. There isn't any example of a phenomenon that has described by natural laws that was later attributed to, or proven to be supernatural.

---

Hypothetically, if a supernatural voice had told OB83 to turn off his car engine, what would the evidence look like?

---

Objective empirical evidence. Evidence better than Kavanaugh's accuser had.

---

We have OB83's witness account. Presumably the basic facts of the accident and his survival were documented in the incident report. Again, hypothetically, is this what you would expect if supernatural intervention had taken place? Or does it go against what you would expect? If so, how?

I'm not asking what it would take to convince you. I'm asking what you would actually expect to see.

---

Evidence beyond question or doubt.

---

I don't understand why a supernatural event would necessarily generate evidence beyond question or doubt. Please explain why that is and what the evidence would be.

---

Deanna Laney, an Assemblies of God Christian, said God spoke to her and ordered her to kill her two children. Do you really believe her hearing God's voice and instruction is evidence that God told her to do that?

---

I'd like to answer that, but I don't want to get sidetracked. How about answering my question first?

---

Causal evidence. Verifyable evidence that natural laws where superseded by supernatural. Otherwise, you have merely subjective speculation.

What do you think is more likely? Someone who is dazed and confused after a wreck, (possibly a by stander communicating from outside to turn off an engine) imagining they heard God's voice, or God actually speaking to them. Laney imagining they heard God's instructions to kill, or God actually speaking to them?

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The problem I see, TS, is that when evidence of supernatural phenomenae is presented, it gets rejected as 'system error' or 'outlier', due to the inability to reproduce the effect under human-controlled conditions. That is, every attempt I have seen to quantify supernatural effects is judged by natural conditions, and so it becomes impossible by definition.

---

If something has a natural explanation, it no longer qualifies for a supernatural explanation. Give me an example of an empirically documented phenomenon that can only be assigned a supernatural cause.

---

That's just my point. If something is really supernatural, you cannot apply the rules of nature to it. You deny anything which is not natural, precisely because it exists outside the rules of nature.

---

Why would you automatically attribute something unknown as being supernatural? History is full of examples where what primitive people once believed was supernatural was later proven governed by natural laws. There isn't any example of a phenomenon that has described by natural laws that was later attributed to, or proven to be supernatural.

---

Hypothetically, if a supernatural voice had told OB83 to turn off his car engine, what would the evidence look like?

---

Objective empirical evidence. Evidence better than Kavanaugh's accuser had.

---

We have OB83's witness account. Presumably the basic facts of the accident and his survival were documented in the incident report. Again, hypothetically, is this what you would expect if supernatural intervention had taken place? Or does it go against what you would expect? If so, how?

I'm not asking what it would take to convince you. I'm asking what you would actually expect to see.

---

Evidence beyond question or doubt.

---

I don't understand why a supernatural event would necessarily generate evidence beyond question or doubt. Please explain why that is and what the evidence would be.

---

Deanna Laney, an Assemblies of God Christian, said God spoke to her and ordered her to kill her two children. Do you really believe her hearing God's voice and instruction is evidence that God told her to do that?

---

I'd like to answer that, but I don't want to get sidetracked. How about answering my question first?

---

Causal evidence. Verifyable evidence that natural laws where superseded by supernatural. Otherwise, you have merely subjective speculation.

What do you think is more likely? Someone who is dazed and confused after a wreck, (possibly a by stander communicating from outside to turn off an engine) imagining they heard God's voice, or God actually speaking to them. Laney imagining they heard God's instructions to kill, or God actually speaking to them?

---

Do you understand my question? I am not asking what you would find credible or convincing.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The problem I see, TS, is that when evidence of supernatural phenomenae is presented, it gets rejected as 'system error' or 'outlier', due to the inability to reproduce the effect under human-controlled conditions. That is, every attempt I have seen to quantify supernatural effects is judged by natural conditions, and so it becomes impossible by definition.

---

If something has a natural explanation, it no longer qualifies for a supernatural explanation. Give me an example of an empirically documented phenomenon that can only be assigned a supernatural cause.

---

That's just my point. If something is really supernatural, you cannot apply the rules of nature to it. You deny anything which is not natural, precisely because it exists outside the rules of nature.

---

Why would you automatically attribute something unknown as being supernatural? History is full of examples where what primitive people once believed was supernatural was later proven governed by natural laws. There isn't any example of a phenomenon that has described by natural laws that was later attributed to, or proven to be supernatural.

---

Hypothetically, if a supernatural voice had told OB83 to turn off his car engine, what would the evidence look like?

---

Objective empirical evidence. Evidence better than Kavanaugh's accuser had.

---

We have OB83's witness account. Presumably the basic facts of the accident and his survival were documented in the incident report. Again, hypothetically, is this what you would expect if supernatural intervention had taken place? Or does it go against what you would expect? If so, how?

I'm not asking what it would take to convince you. I'm asking what you would actually expect to see.

---

Evidence beyond question or doubt.

---

I don't understand why a supernatural event would necessarily generate evidence beyond question or doubt. Please explain why that is and what the evidence would be.

---

Deanna Laney, an Assemblies of God Christian, said God spoke to her and ordered her to kill her two children. Do you really believe her hearing God's voice and instruction is evidence that God told her to do that?

---

This is where Scripture matters, TS.

---

Which part of scripture? The scripture that condones stoning, raping, pillaging, and plundering? The near sacrifice of Isaac? Or, thou shalt not kill?

---

Pick one specific verse, and we can discuss its background and intent.

Or would you rather appear to be emotionally ranting?

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The problem I see, TS, is that when evidence of supernatural phenomenae is presented, it gets rejected as 'system error' or 'outlier', due to the inability to reproduce the effect under human-controlled conditions. That is, every attempt I have seen to quantify supernatural effects is judged by natural conditions, and so it becomes impossible by definition.

---

If something has a natural explanation, it no longer qualifies for a supernatural explanation. Give me an example of an empirically documented phenomenon that can only be assigned a supernatural cause.

---

That's just my point. If something is really supernatural, you cannot apply the rules of nature to it. You deny anything which is not natural, precisely because it exists outside the rules of nature.

---

Why would you automatically attribute something unknown as being supernatural? History is full of examples where what primitive people once believed was supernatural was later proven governed by natural laws. There isn't any example of a phenomenon that has described by natural laws that was later attributed to, or proven to be supernatural.

---

Hypothetically, if a supernatural voice had told OB83 to turn off his car engine, what would the evidence look like?

---

Objective empirical evidence. Evidence better than Kavanaugh's accuser had.

---

We have OB83's witness account. Presumably the basic facts of the accident and his survival were documented in the incident report. Again, hypothetically, is this what you would expect if supernatural intervention had taken place? Or does it go against what you would expect? If so, how?

I'm not asking what it would take to convince you. I'm asking what you would actually expect to see.

---

Evidence beyond question or doubt.

---

I don't understand why a supernatural event would necessarily generate evidence beyond question or doubt. Please explain why that is and what the evidence would be.

---

Deanna Laney, an Assemblies of God Christian, said God spoke to her and ordered her to kill her two children. Do you really believe her hearing God's voice and instruction is evidence that God told her to do that?

---

I'd like to answer that, but I don't want to get sidetracked. How about answering my question first?

---

Causal evidence. Verifyable evidence that natural laws where superseded by supernatural. Otherwise, you have merely subjective speculation.

What do you think is more likely? Someone who is dazed and confused after a wreck, (possibly a by stander communicating from outside to turn off an engine) imagining they heard God's voice, or God actually speaking to them. Laney imagining they heard God's instructions to kill, or God actually speaking to them?

---

Do you understand my question? I am not asking what you would find credible or convincing.

---

Quote:

---

Hypothetically, if a supernatural voice had told OB83 to turn off his car engine, what would the evidence look like?

---

You and I both know there may be no discoverable evidence with our present capabilities. However, to attribute something to being supernatural, a natural explanation would have to be ruled out. Objective empirical evidence of a supernatural event which clearly demonstrates the impossibility of a natural explanation would be needed to attribute something as being supernatural.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The problem I see, TS, is that when evidence of supernatural phenomenae is presented, it gets rejected as 'system error' or 'outlier', due to the inability to reproduce the effect under human-controlled conditions. That is, every attempt I have seen to quantify supernatural effects is judged by natural conditions, and so it becomes impossible by definition.

---

If something has a natural explanation, it no longer qualifies for a supernatural explanation. Give me an example of an empirically documented phenomenon that can only be assigned a supernatural cause.

---

That's just my point. If something is really supernatural, you cannot apply the rules of nature to it. You deny anything which is not natural, precisely because it exists outside the rules of nature.

---

Why would you automatically attribute something unknown as being supernatural? History is full of examples where what primitive people once believed was supernatural was later proven governed by natural laws. There isn't any example of a phenomenon that has described by natural laws that was later attributed to, or proven to be supernatural.

---

Hypothetically, if a supernatural voice had told OB83 to turn off his car engine, what would the evidence look like?

---

Objective empirical evidence. Evidence better than Kavanaugh's accuser had.

---

We have OB83's witness account. Presumably the basic facts of the accident and his survival were documented in the incident report. Again, hypothetically, is this what you would expect if supernatural intervention had taken place? Or does it go against what you would expect? If so, how?

I'm not asking what it would take to convince you. I'm asking what you would actually expect to see.

---

Evidence beyond question or doubt.

---

I don't understand why a supernatural event would necessarily generate evidence beyond question or doubt. Please explain why that is and what the evidence would be.

---

Deanna Laney, an Assemblies of God Christian, said God spoke to her and ordered her to kill her two children. Do you really believe her hearing God's voice and instruction is evidence that God told her to do that?

---

I'd like to answer that, but I don't want to get sidetracked. How about answering my question first?

---

Causal evidence. Verifyable evidence that natural laws where superseded by supernatural. Otherwise, you have merely subjective speculation.

What do you think is more likely? Someone who is dazed and confused after a wreck, (possibly a by stander communicating from outside to turn off an engine) imagining they heard God's voice, or God actually speaking to them. Laney imagining they heard God's instructions to kill, or God actually speaking to them?

---

Do you understand my question? I am not asking what you would find credible or convincing.

---

Quote:

---

Hypothetically, if a supernatural voice had told OB83 to turn off his car engine, what would the evidence look like?

---

You and I both know there may be no discoverable evidence with our present capabilities. However, to attribute something to being supernatural, a natural explanation would have to be ruled out. Objective empirical evidence of a supernatural event which clearly demonstrates the impossibility of a natural explanation would be needed to attribute something as being supernatural.

---

I'm not interested in how anyone would interpret the event. I'm only interested in what evidence would exist if a supernatural event hypothetically occurred. OB83's experience is a form of empirical evidence, that is evidence received by means of the senses. You haven't specified any other evidence that's missing from the scenario. So my conclusion is not necessarily that OB83 witnessed a supernatural event. My conclusion is that if he did witness a supernatural event, the evidence would look very much like it actually does. Do you disagree?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

I was looking at another thread where a poster was talking about his interpretation of the bible. This got me thinking about what do others here think about some popular questions people are asked about Christian faith. What are your specific beliefs to these questions?

1. Is the whole bible inspired by God? If not, how do you choose which parts to follow and ignore?
2. Do you believe Jesus is a divine figure or was simply a man?
3. Can you lose your salvation?
4. What is your view on the rapture?
5. Do you believe in original sin?
6. Do you think the world is roughly 6,000 years old?
7. Do you believe in evolution?
8. Do you believe in the Trinity?
9. Do you believe in the miracles of the bible?
10. Why do you believe in Christianity?

Also, is there any other question that you would like to know about other believers here that I have left off?

---

.
When answering any of these questions I learned from philosophy and semantics that premises and definitions are essential to answers.
Shall I delineate those for you?

---

Why start now?

---

I do every time. You don't like your premise challenged
Here's one "God is all powerful."
The power controlling all powers - wind, rain, tornadoes, gravity, motion, etc.
Prove your premise using the tools with we study and learn about these powers.
Use physics, chemistry, math, and biology.
You cannot do it. I have not even tried. Your "premise" is indefensible in the real world.

---

you can't prove what caused a rock to roll down a hill , something much easier to do and yet, you try to send Sam on this fool's errand.

You continue to drive the clown car.

---

Sure I can prove it why it rolled down the hill gravity and erosion and water and rain.
He framed the question "WHO" tipped it? Who is the wrong premise for the question. He can't defend why he asked the question in that form.
You asked the right question "WHAT caused it?"
He asked "Who tipped it?"
It's a nonsensical question for science - in this question we turn geology and physics not the Bible.
Our premise matters

---

Who and why are philosophical questions. How and what are scientific questions. Your question is indeed nonsensical because it asks for scientific proof of a philosophical idea. It's like demanding proof that 2 + 2 = purple.

---

Rocks rolling down hills is not a philosophical or theological question. It is a scientific question.

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

I was looking at another thread where a poster was talking about his interpretation of the bible. This got me thinking about what do others here think about some popular questions people are asked about Christian faith. What are your specific beliefs to these questions?

1. Is the whole bible inspired by God? If not, how do you choose which parts to follow and ignore?
2. Do you believe Jesus is a divine figure or was simply a man?
3. Can you lose your salvation?
4. What is your view on the rapture?
5. Do you believe in original sin?
6. Do you think the world is roughly 6,000 years old?
7. Do you believe in evolution?
8. Do you believe in the Trinity?
9. Do you believe in the miracles of the bible?
10. Why do you believe in Christianity?

Also, is there any other question that you would like to know about other believers here that I have left off?

---

.
When answering any of these questions I learned from philosophy and semantics that premises and definitions are essential to answers.
Shall I delineate those for you?

---

Why start now?

---

I do every time. You don't like your premise challenged
Here's one "God is all powerful."
The power controlling all powers - wind, rain, tornadoes, gravity, motion, etc.
Prove your premise using the tools with we study and learn about these powers.
Use physics, chemistry, math, and biology.
You cannot do it. I have not even tried. Your "premise" is indefensible in the real world.

---

you can't prove what caused a rock to roll down a hill , something much easier to do and yet, you try to send Sam on this fool's errand.

You continue to drive the clown car.

---

Sure I can prove it why it rolled down the hill gravity and erosion and water and rain.
He framed the question "WHO" tipped it? Who is the wrong premise for the question. He can't defend why he asked the question in that form.
You asked the right question "WHAT caused it?"
He asked "Who tipped it?"
It's a nonsensical question for science - in this question we turn geology and physics not the Bible.
Our premise matters

---

Who and why are philosophical questions. How and what are scientific questions. Your question is indeed nonsensical because it asks for scientific proof of a philosophical idea. It's like demanding proof that 2 + 2 = purple.

---

Rocks rolling down hills is not a philosophical or theological question. It is a scientific question.

---

It's any or all of those, depending on the context.

You're rambling. It's not my question. "Who tipped the rock?" Is a wrong and nonsensical question. You can't plot it down in theology.
Who in this context is subjective and unprovable. One says God and another The Hero Twins.

Waco1947 said:

---

You're rambling. It's not my question. "Who tipped the rock?" Is a wrong and nonsensical question. You can't plot it down in theology.
Who in this context is subjective and unprovable. One says God and another The Hero Twins.

---

Of course it's your question. You want scientific proof that God has power over the elements, but science doesn't speak the language of theology. All it does is describe the world.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

You're rambling. It's not my question. "Who tipped the rock?" Is a wrong and nonsensical question. You can't plot it down in theology.
Who in this context is subjective and unprovable. One says God and another The Hero Twins.

---

Of course it's your question. You want scientific proof that God has power over the elements, but science doesn't speak the language of theology. All it does is describe the world.

---

No it's not "my" question. Someone else asked it of me. Stay current.