Not sure 47 will agree as Buddha didn't believe in butt salvation. Whereas Jesus, in 47's teachings, it is the only way to the Kingdom.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

My belief is that your religion largely depends on the country and family you were born into

---

So all those Muslims in the US, Christians in China, etc. ... you ignore them?

---

Family. Then geography. There's a reason why denominations of Christianity were formed. People in one geographical location got together and said they don't agree with the teachings of the people down the road. Let's branch off. Again, and again.

It's easy to be a Christian in the US. Buddhist in Thailand. Muslim in Saudi. Switching religions to most people is like switching families. It would be one of the toughest things they ever had to do. It would mean denying the beliefs of their families and all their ancestors. Basically telling them all they're going to hell. Good luck being successful in that community. For some, religion is a necessity for their survival and success in life.

---

Not always true. Technology makes it harder to control interest in alternative faiths, I laughed a few months ago to find out Iran is struggling to control a rise in Jedism.

2019 is very different from 1949 and a lot of sociologists have still not realized that fact.

---

Strange times today, and strange beliefs to go with it. Just met a rock climber from Canada the other day that is a flat earther. He recently flew to Europe, then Thailand. He said his next stop was back home to Canada with a layover in China. I shook my head then laughed a little bit, and kept climbing.

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.

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?

ShooterTX 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.

---

Serious question:

Do you think it is possible to confirm something supernatural with science?

Example: If i gave you examples of miracles from my own life, wouldn't you want to study them and test them to see if there is a scientific explanation? And if you couldn't explain them with science, would you accept that as proof of the supernatural? Or would you need some scientific way to prove the supernatural?

I have witnessed a few miracles in my time. I was in Mexico, and prayed for a man who was so drunk that he could barely stand up. Within about 5 minutes he was stone cold sober. It totally freaked me out, and everyone around us as well. This happened in an open air marketplace. The local shop keepers had seen him drinking all day long, and getting more & more intoxicated.
Now... how can you possibly use science to test this miracle? It's been years since this incident happened. Even if you had been onsite at the time, how could you test it? How would you know to take blood samples before & after the event?
If someone was raised from the dead, could you definitively prove that they were dead? Couldn't the coroner have made a mistake?

I don't think it will ever work the way you want it to. The purpose of a miracle is to build up someones faith. Miracles occur because of the supernatural power of God. Many people feel better putting their faith in science, rather than God. It becomes a battle between God & science, which is sad. Science isn't supposed to be about faith, but about discovery & understanding. God doesn't have a problem with the scientific method, but modern scientists often have a huge problem with God.

I have my faith in God, but I use science to explain the physical world. I do not view science as the ultimate set of answers to everything. My faith gives me purpose & meaning in my life. Science helps enhance my life, while I am living out that purpose & meaning. For example: the science of addiction is fascinating! It is really helpful to understand how the brain & body can create physiological addictions from a pattern of behaviors. However, I have never seen anyone overcome addictions with science alone. Methadone and other chemicals are very helpful, but if the God part is missing, then the behaviors resurface. The underlying issue which lead someone to "medicate the pain", must be dealt with if addiction is to truly be wiped out. I know that behavioral science attempts to deal with the root issues, but it just isn't as successful as faith-based therapy. Even AA admits that to be successful, you need to believe in a "higher power". To be honest, I don't think behavioral sciences are scientific in the first place. I mean, what is the scientific proof that love exists? How do you measure love? How do you proof the presence or absence of love? In the same way, how does science prove the existence or abscense of God? The Bible claims that God is Love, so this is a valid question. Do we doubt the existence of love, just because science cannot measure or prove the presence/absence of love?

---

There are many possible explanations for your miracle without invoking a supernatural agent.

It is possible to design a test for claims of a supernatural agent (god) at work. For instance, Benson et al (2006) tested the efficacy of intercessory prayer. They found "Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from coronary artery graft bypass surgery, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications."

Supernatural claims about the age of the earth, and a global flood have all been debunked by science.

Show me an accepted scientific finding that has been debunked by a supernatural explanation.

Your claim that recover from addiction requires faith based therapy and a belief in a higher power (god) isn't true. I personally know of recovered addicts and alcoholics who have been "clean" for years without faith based therapy, some of whom are atheists. There are many rational recovery programs. AA has an abysmal success rate - less than 10%. .

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.

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.

---

What would the evidence actually look like if it happened?

TexasScientist said:

---

Supernatural claims about the age of the earth, and a global flood have all been debunked by science.

---

How has science been able to debunk either of those claims given we weren't alive to see these events? If you are assuming the carbon dating works properly, we have no way of knowing if that testing is working properly for such a long time in the past. You appear to be stating guesses and passing them off as facts.

TexasScientist said:

---

Show me an accepted scientific finding that has been debunked by a supernatural explanation.

---

It usually goes the other way around. But even if we did point something out to you, you would reject it because of your previous strong bias. You have an extremely high bar for supernatural explanation and a very low one for scientific finding.

You are also assuming that your scientific findings can always debunk a supernatural explanation but that is opinion not fact. There are many examples where the current science can't explain why something happened. You are just hoping that future science could provide the answer. Let's not pretend you have fact checked all these claims.

TexasScientist said:

---

ShooterTX 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.

---

Serious question:

Do you think it is possible to confirm something supernatural with science?

Example: If i gave you examples of miracles from my own life, wouldn't you want to study them and test them to see if there is a scientific explanation? And if you couldn't explain them with science, would you accept that as proof of the supernatural? Or would you need some scientific way to prove the supernatural?

I have witnessed a few miracles in my time. I was in Mexico, and prayed for a man who was so drunk that he could barely stand up. Within about 5 minutes he was stone cold sober. It totally freaked me out, and everyone around us as well. This happened in an open air marketplace. The local shop keepers had seen him drinking all day long, and getting more & more intoxicated.
Now... how can you possibly use science to test this miracle? It's been years since this incident happened. Even if you had been onsite at the time, how could you test it? How would you know to take blood samples before & after the event?
If someone was raised from the dead, could you definitively prove that they were dead? Couldn't the coroner have made a mistake?

I don't think it will ever work the way you want it to. The purpose of a miracle is to build up someones faith. Miracles occur because of the supernatural power of God. Many people feel better putting their faith in science, rather than God. It becomes a battle between God & science, which is sad. Science isn't supposed to be about faith, but about discovery & understanding. God doesn't have a problem with the scientific method, but modern scientists often have a huge problem with God.

I have my faith in God, but I use science to explain the physical world. I do not view science as the ultimate set of answers to everything. My faith gives me purpose & meaning in my life. Science helps enhance my life, while I am living out that purpose & meaning. For example: the science of addiction is fascinating! It is really helpful to understand how the brain & body can create physiological addictions from a pattern of behaviors. However, I have never seen anyone overcome addictions with science alone. Methadone and other chemicals are very helpful, but if the God part is missing, then the behaviors resurface. The underlying issue which lead someone to "medicate the pain", must be dealt with if addiction is to truly be wiped out. I know that behavioral science attempts to deal with the root issues, but it just isn't as successful as faith-based therapy. Even AA admits that to be successful, you need to believe in a "higher power". To be honest, I don't think behavioral sciences are scientific in the first place. I mean, what is the scientific proof that love exists? How do you measure love? How do you proof the presence or absence of love? In the same way, how does science prove the existence or abscense of God? The Bible claims that God is Love, so this is a valid question. Do we doubt the existence of love, just because science cannot measure or prove the presence/absence of love?

---

There are many possible explanations for your miracle without invoking a supernatural agent.

It is possible to design a test for claims of a supernatural agent (god) at work. For instance, Benson et al (2006) tested the efficacy of intercessory prayer. They found "Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from coronary artery graft bypass surgery, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications."

Supernatural claims about the age of the earth, and a global flood have all been debunked by science.

Show me an accepted scientific finding that has been debunked by a supernatural explanation.

Your claim that recover from addiction requires faith based therapy and a belief in a higher power (god) isn't true. I personally know of recovered addicts and alcoholics who have been "clean" for years without faith based therapy, some of whom are atheists. There are many rational recovery programs. AA has an abysmal success rate - less than 10%. .

---

I think we both have personal experiences which support & form our beliefs. Probably not going to convince one another on this topic.

I'm not a fan of AA either. I just wanted to show that even they acknowledge the need for a higher power.
I do NOT like their idea that someone is forever a "recovering alcoholic". To me, that idea is self defeating.
I personally have been free from alcohol for more than 20 years. It has no affect on my now. I'm not recovering from it. I am free from it. THAT is what God has done for me. It's not a miracle. It's just the everyday power of God to "set the captives free".

I've never heard anyone offer a scientific explanation for how a drunk man could suddenly become sober within 5 minutes. I would love to read that information, if you could provide a link. Thanks for the discussion.

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.

I've experienced this "string of events". You can call them miracles, God things, or whatever you'd like. In my heart, I know it was God showing Himself to me, reminding me that He was still there.

I had lost my job and money was tight. My wife and I had just finished an anguished discussion about money and what we were going to need to do. That day in the mail, we received a letter from an insurance company reminding us that we never cashed a settlement check from an accident two years before. We didn't cash it because we didn't know if there would be any medical issues showing up later. We had told the insurance company we'd wait a year and then settle if nothing showed by then. Then, we simply forgot about the money until that letter showed up... right when we needed it. Coincidence or God's hand?

Time goes on and the job search goes on with nothing promising. We decided that when she finished work that evening we would have a discussion about what drastic measures we were going to take to make ends meet. She goes to the mailbox and finds two checks we didn't know we were due to receive. Coincidence or God?

While unemployed, my job searches were coming up empty. I'd had one promising interview, ONE! I was as depressed as I had ever been. I prayed perhaps the most earnest prayer I'd ever prayed asking God to quickly teach me what I needed to learn, change me where I needed to change and lead me in the right path. At the VERY instant I said amen, the phone rang. It was that company calling me back for a second interview. Coincidence or God's perfect timing?


I had my second interview. It was great! They said they contact me the next day. No call. The next day again, no call. Still another day and no call. At 4 on the 4th day after the interview, still no call so I called them. Stinking voicemail! I left a message but no return call. Day 5 rolls along and I'm back to being as down and depressed as ever again. I'm back on the computer searching job postings again, all of which I've already seen and applied to all I was qualified. I quit searching. I was back to being as down and depressed as I was before. In my desperation, I cried out to God in prayer again, not for a job but for God to change in me what needed to change and to show me the direction I needed to go. Once again, the very instant I say amen, the phone rings. It was the job offer!!!

Each of these things, by themselves, can be explained away as coincidences. As a whole, it becomes a bit more difficult for me to do that. Proof? Nah. Something that strengthens my faith? ABSOLUTELY!!!

TS, can science explain why your theoretical evolution came up with the crazily, improbable life cycle and migration pattern of the monarch butterfly. Can it explain the perfect camouflage patterns of the varieties of walking sticks, flounders, moths?

God shows himself to us in his actions and in his creation.

BaylorFTW said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

My belief is that your religion largely depends on the country and family you were born into

---

Amen.
To think otherwise is cultural arrogance.

---

Respectfully, I think you are running the risk of cultural relativism here rather than championing Christianity. The statement by Buddha Bear is certainly generally true but we as Christians need to advocate that Jesus is the only way as in John 14:6. We are called to spread the gospel and should want all people to become Christians so that they can be saved. Originally the US and Europe did not have Christians either but in time this came to be. I have heard others say that God will send messages in various forms to those in other countries who are seeking God to come to Christianity whether it be in the form of dreams, missionaries, internet content, etc.). The point being that no matter where you start from, you can come to Christianity and we should be promoting that idea rather than it is ok for you to remain in some other religion that is not the way to salvation. If some people see this as narrow-minded, it matters not as we are to seek the favor of God rather than our fellow man.

---

Cultural Relativism? That's exactly what you are doing to Christianity

---

what say BaylorFW

---

I want to hear more about what you think I am doing to Christianity before I can adequately respond? I think it would be a good thing for the world if more people adopted the culture and values of Christianity. I am perfectly fine if it replaces the culture and values of some pagan religions, atheism or Islamic influence in more parts of the world. I believe some cultures are better than others.

---

What values of the Christian Faith?

1. Is the whole bible inspired by God? Yes, all 79 books of it.

2. Do you believe Jesus is a divine figure or was simply a man? True God from True God.

3. Can you lose your salvation? Yes.

4. What is your view on the rapture? Just say no.

5. Do you believe in original sin? The consequences of it.

6. Do you think the world is roughly 6,000 years old? Tens of thousands.

7. Do you believe in evolution? No.

8. Do you believe in the Trinity? Yes.

9. Do you believe in the miracles of the bible? Yes.

10. Why do you believe in Christianity? Romans is the most coherent thesis on the nature of man as he relates to God.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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

Go back to his original question. I believe you are mistaken.

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.

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.

---

You're not helping me very much. How would it differ from the evidence that OB83 presented earlier?

Sadly, the only evidence, I believe, TS will believe involves a White Throne. I pray I'm wrong and that he changes before then.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Go back to his original question. I believe you are mistaken.

---

You go back. He said "Who?"

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Sadly, the only evidence, I believe, TS will believe involves a White Throne. I pray I'm wrong and that he changes before then.

---

I don't think TS is in peril for doubting supernatural forces. Jesus was, for example, very limited in His displays of such power, for reason that He sought to speak to the heart, not dazzle the senses.

BaylorFTW said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Supernatural claims about the age of the earth, and a global flood have all been debunked by science.

---

How has science been able to debunk either of those claims given we weren't alive to see these events? If you are assuming the carbon dating works properly, we have no way of knowing if that testing is working properly for such a long time in the past. You appear to be stating guesses and passing them off as facts.

TexasScientist said:

---

Show me an accepted scientific finding that has been debunked by a supernatural explanation.

---

It usually goes the other way around. But even if we did point something out to you, you would reject it because of your previous strong bias. You have an extremely high bar for supernatural explanation and a very low one for scientific finding.

You are also assuming that your scientific findings can always debunk a supernatural explanation but that is opinion not fact. There are many examples where the current science can't explain why something happened. You are just hoping that future science could provide the answer. Let's not pretend you have fact checked all these claims.

---

Quote:

---

How has science been able to debunk either of those claims given we weren't alive to see these events? If you are assuming the carbon dating works properly, we have no way of knowing if that testing is working properly for such a long time in the past. You appear to be stating guesses and passing them off as facts.

---

Radiometric dating, sequence stratigraphy, and the fossil record have conclusively debunked a young earth concept and a great flood. Carbon 14 analysis is not the only, form of radiometric dating. For older dating of samples, there are other radioactive elements to use.

Quote:

---

You have an extremely high bar for supernatural explanation and a very low one for scientific finding.

---

Actually, you have that backwards. The bar is extremely high for scientific findings. Science requires an empirical method of observation, measurement, questioning, formulation, testing and modification of hypothesis, with repeatable results, before acceptance. The bar for supernatural explanation is extremely low, to the point of only requiring it in the minds of those who think they experience it.

Science holds supernatural explanation to the same skeptisim as natural.

Quote:

---

There are many examples where the current science can't explain why something happened. You are just hoping that future science could provide the answer. Let's not pretend you have fact checked all these claims

---

The inability of science to as yet fully explain something, shouldn't automatically give rise to plugging in a supernatural explanation. Extraordinary claims should require extraordinary evidence. There isn't any objective evidence of a supernatural explanation overtaking a scientific explanation, there are abundant examples of the the reverse. Hope for future scientific understanding of anything, based upon the past, is more likely to come from understanding natural laws as opposed to a supernatural explanation.

TS is biased in favor of lab coats. He will, in the absence of proof, default to his own assumptions,

This merely shows the same predilection of those who rely on superstition, solipsism, and polemics.

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?

---

Ok, I've went through this 3 times and started to answer but stopped....These are tough questions...I'm trying to answer rapid fire without too much thinking and just instinctive answers...Some may not like it, but it's me.

1) Inspired by God, but written by man...Lots of smart guys that laid down the basic rules of life and civilization early on with a higher inspiration...I follow all of the rules because I think they are wise and lead to good relations.

2) Simply a man that had a following that made him devine...A man with a lot of great thoughts and was determined enough to stand by them, no matter the consequences.

3) This is where it gets tougher because judgement starts...Can I lose my salvation? If there is such, I don't think so because I know my approach...Can one lose their salvation, no matter what? I'd hope to believe no, but I have to believe yes...Some don't want their salvation.

4) I have no view on rapture as I believe it is extreme...I acknowledge I'm not up to date on any type of upcoming rapture...Once again if it exists, I will probably not see it.

5) Again, I show my ignorance...I don't know what "original sin" is...I will leave it at that and maybe someone will educate me.

6) Could be.

7) Yes, to a degree...I think science pretty much proves it in many cases...The world has been a constant study of evolution in much more than a creation only phase.

8) Yes, again to a degree and that degree being the philosophy...I think it represents more than words or physical happenings.

9) I think there are great stories, but no, I don't believe all the miracles physically happened...In my opinion, more aimed towards point than aimed towards literal happenings.

10) For me, it's because it is a great overall guidance of trying to steer the human being straight...That is a very difficult path as there are so many people and they are so diverse...I look at Christianity and I look at the 10 Commandments...I don't need to go much further as its not an agenda, but just a basic set of rules I would have to believe anyone can agree upon, no matter the religion, race, gender, etc....If those 10 things don't jive with you, our chances of agreeing on those points is almost nil..However, never say never, lol


Now I'm going to go look through the thread...I wanted to answer beforehand so my thoughts weren't biased.

Pablo Fanque said:

---

1. Is the whole bible inspired by God? If not, how do you choose which parts to follow and ignore?

Yes, but I suspect my conception of inspiration differs from others'. Stated simply, I believe the Bible we have is the Bible God wants us to have. Inspiration was present in the original writing, in the editorial revisions, in the copying, and in every other stage of transmitting the text to us today, including the church councils that chose which ones were or were not canon. Inspiration is present when each of us reads that text today. I don't think there is "inspiration" in the translation process from ancient manuscripts that we have to modern translations such as KJV, NIV, etc. And I don't think of inspiration as meaning God took over the minds and bodies of the writers. It's more in the vein that they were somehow channeling the message God had for their audience at the time of writing.

2. Do you believe Jesus is a divine figure or was simply a man?

Fully human, fully divine. It's still hard to understand what that means in terms of Jesus's inner knowledge and thoughts.

3. Can you lose your salvation?

This has real potential to be a semantic question rather than an actual how-things-work question. I don't believe you can lose your salvation. I do believe that people can become genuine believers and then choose later in life to stop following/believing. In that way, they can give up their salvation. This is the most consistent conception for me as a believer that God gives us the free will to follow Him or not. I find unpersuasive the sophistry of well-he-wasn't-really-saved-in-the-first-place.

4. What is your view on the rapture?

I don't care enough to worry about this. Jesus will return someday to begin the end of the world we know and its transformation into the world God truly intends for us. How that happens is still a mystery.

5. Do you believe in original sin?

Yes, in the sense that I believe that sin is inherent in our nature. Whether original sin came to us via a historical Adam and Eve in the literal sense as told in the Bible - probably not. That's likely a sacred myth God gave the ancients to help them understand their sin natures. But I could be wrong about that - it may have happened exactly as described in the Bible as if it were a literal account.

6. Do you think the world is roughly 6,000 years old?

No.

7. Do you believe in evolution?

Of course. The question is really getting at origins of life, though, I assume. In this regard, I am best described as a theistic evolutionist. God created life in the context of a universe governed by natural laws. Life has mostly evolved within the framework God created.

8. Do you believe in the Trinity?

Yes, but it's more confusing the more I learn about it and think about.

9. Do you believe in the miracles of the bible?

Yes, though I don't get worried that some of them might merely have appeared as miracles when they were actually the operation of God's natural laws rather than God's actions in contravention of His natural laws.

10. Why do you believe in Christianity?

I converted as a young adult. I started with the existence of God and then learned the message of Christianity. In this regard, it's possible that my belief in Christianity is culturally contingent - i.e., I am Christian because I embraced the belief in God in a Christian society. I continue to believe in Christianity both because my personal experience tells me that it is valid and because of my continued learning and study of what Christianity means in all of its diversity. Finally, I find that my Christian commitment has made me a better person, such that I think I would continue the lifestyle of Christianity even if someone could conclusively prove to me that God isn't real and the story of Jesus is a mere fable.

---

I guess if I read through the thread, albeit quick, I could have just copied this and says it better than I did.

Your on target about science and the supernatural, TS but God is love and that is not science and emotion.

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.

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.

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.

---

Read up on new, better alternatives of archeological dating.
Educated people should not be fooled by non-science

Waco: "Educated people should not be fooled by non-science"

Then we should ignore pretty much all your posts, Waco.

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.