Please Give Your Opinions on My Origins Viewpoints

[Midst]

Okay, I like to get counteropinions on matters I believe in, or have confidence on, so soliciting this here in regards to origins theology:


Brief Background: I am well read in modern evolutionary theories, having bothered to go and get the counteropinions from many of the leading evolutionist pundits such as Dawkins and Sagan (having read their books, seen some of the videos, and so on).

Problem for me is I have seen quite a bit of the "supernatural", so I knew that none of this was likely true.

My conclusion is that a lot of the evidence they are finding are "false signs".

I realize that is difficult to believe, but I have seen there is that capacity.



Dawkins and Sagan both rely heavily on strawman type of argumentation for many of their arguments against creationism. I think they would not have to do this if they had firm ground to stand on.

Evolutionists also like to try and redefine "faith" as "believing without evidence". This sort of message is strongly propagandized in society. But it is the opposite of true.

We have faith based on evidence. Consider James pointing out that the demons know God exists, and he calls that "faith without deeds which is dead".



What I believe is surely based on evidence.



Whether dead or alive faith, that is up to God, but I have confidence it is alive.


It might be noted, that on studying modern evolutionists viewpoints I do, however, agree with them that there is no room there for God stepping in -- not in any capacity. Further, if God would do this, then why have such an evolution at all?


No, I believe their entire edifice is corrupted with false evidence. Something is giving them the evidence they are seeking for. They believe in lies because they *want* to believe these things. This is their preference. So, somehow, creation is providing what it is they want to see. But this only deludes them.


Now, how or why... in Thessalonians, God is said to send people a great lie. There is also speaking of false signs being given to the nations to lead them against God and his people.

 

[mark kennedy]

Hi Midst,

I really like your post, no real problems with it. I would caution you though that the problem isn't evolution as it is properly defined in Biology. Evolution is just the change of traits in populations over time. What you are describing, rather generally, is a philosophy of natural history that excludes God going all the way back to and including the Big Bang.

Sagan was an atheists but his thoughts on religion really don't amount to much. Dawkins is much more interesting but ultimately an avowed atheist, he writes much better but he demonizes religion relentlessly.

Welcome to the forum, I hope you enjoy your time here.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Midst]

Hi Midst,

I really like your post, no real problems with it. I would caution you though that the problem isn't evolution as it is properly defined in Biology. Evolution is just the change of traits in populations over time. What you are describing, rather generally, is a philosophy of natural history that excludes God going all the way back to and including the Big Bang.

Sagan was an atheists but his thoughts on religion really don't amount to much. Dawkins is much more interesting but ultimately an avowed atheist, he writes much better but he demonizes religion relentlessly.

Welcome to the forum, I hope you enjoy your time here.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Thanks for the nice response.

I largely can not argue to atheists, of course, that I believe there is some kind of systematic deception going on. So, it is a moot point in terms of discussion: though one can argue that such matters are far from proven out.

Dawkins, in one of his books, quoted another scientist who argued that 'for all we know we just appeared five minutes ago with memories and torn jeans altogether'. And well pointed out that regardless their job is to follow the evidence. Which is fair enough.

And largely good reasoning I often see Christians even avoid.

Though, they clearly do not follow this stringent reasoning pattern, though they know it well enough to speak of it.

In their "exposes" of Christianity they resort to knuckle dragging rhetorics of the worst sort.

(For instance, in one book Dawkins argues that because Lot's daughters got Lot drunk and slept with him the 'God of the Bible' was therefore promoting that as a virtue.)

(This was his foremost "big" argument. He added to this "morality" of "the God of the Bible" by throwing in more "examples" of how "God" explained morality through misguided actions of people acting entirely separate from God.)


Back on the topic: things very large, very small, very far away - in time or space... these are extremely difficult to observe. They make the assumption they have perfect observation to these matters anyway. There is a lot of work spent in comparing this sort of science with more direct empircal science which has produced our modern technology. The argument being, essentially, "I am a scientist, so are the people who made your computer... your computer is impressive and based on empirical science... so is my work, therefore because we are both scientists".


However, there are a lot of observations they have made with fairly compelling evidence that evolution is in motion and stays in motion on its' own through largely sheer expansive time.

These observations go from the micro to the macro, from the molecular level to the level of astrophysics. As everyone knows who has studied these things....


My major problem comes down to, "why". Why would God have had us be created over a very long period of time like this. It can be noted even evolutionists have - claimed - to have stumbled onto some of the basic truths of the Bible:

The ordering of creation as set in Genesis is roughly according to their ordering of how they believe things happened. That is, man is not first, there were fish, then birds, and so on. The universe was created in a big bang, in an relative instant.

The heavens were created first, then the earth.

Man was created last, after all the animals and plants.

The sun was created before the moon.


...

However, this does not mean much to me. One reason, besides having seen angels create material things out of thin air... is that every night we dream, and in our dreams we are both the participant observer and the creator and sustainer of our entire virtual dream worlds.

Further, if we look closely at anything in our dreams to try and discern if we are dreaming or not... our own minds will adapt to our observations and provide false evidence to us.

If there is a book, our mind will provide words. If there is a road to travel, our mind will provide everything in the road. If there is a person, our mind will give them behavior and words.

All of this makes the dream more real, but the dream is not real. These details are as false as the lower level details of the trusting mind that won't ever suspect a dream is just a dream.

Though, this sort of argument, too, is not possible to give to such atheists.

 

[mark kennedy]

Thanks for the nice response.

Your very welcome

I largely can not argue to atheists, of course, that I believe there is some kind of systematic deception going on. So, it is a moot point in terms of discussion: though one can argue that such matters are far from proven out.

They are intent on convincing everyone that the material elements are the sum total of reality. Knowledge is power, as Francis Bacon said, and if you can guard real world knowledge it gives you great leverage. I think that's the heart of the matter.

Dawkins, in one of his books, quoted another scientist who argued that 'for all we know we just appeared five minutes ago with memories and torn jeans altogether'. And well pointed out that regardless their job is to follow the evidence. Which is fair enough.

Don't tell anyone but Dawkins is the best source I have for Creationism, with the exception of Charles Darwin himself. He is typical of the ivory tower academic who thinks in terms of populations rather then people. He knows just enough about Biology to lead the average person away from real world knowledge of the life sciences.

And largely good reasoning I often see Christians even avoid.

Though, they clearly do not follow this stringent reasoning pattern, though they know it well enough to speak of it.

How well I know that, it's disappointing the Creationist must avoid these discussion due to the contentious nature of the subject. There is kind of a break in the drama now because the Darwinians believe they have won. That's the only reason your not being inundated with anti-creationist rhetoric right now.

In their "exposes" of Christianity they resort to knuckle dragging rhetorics of the worst sort.

Actually they avoid the subject of Christianity like the plague, their goal is to socialize the masses under the banner of atheistic materialism. That's why they have focused on Creation for so long, if they can extinguish a belief in miracles there they can avoid the Bible and the doctrines of the faith entirely.

(For instance, in one book Dawkins argues that because Lot's daughters got Lot drunk and slept with him the 'God of the Bible' was therefore promoting that as a virtue.)

Notice, he has nothing to say about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He's drawing attention away from the Scriptures, poisoning the well so to speak.

(This was his foremost "big" argument. He added to this "morality" of "the God of the Bible" by throwing in more "examples" of how "God" explained morality through misguided actions of people acting entirely separate from God.)

They love to moralize because the want to emulate the moral influence of the Church down through the centuries.

Back on the topic: things very large, very small, very far away - in time or space... these are extremely difficult to observe. They make the assumption they have perfect observation to these matters anyway. There is a lot of work spent in comparing this sort of science with more direct empircal science which has produced our modern technology. The argument being, essentially, "I am a scientist, so are the people who made your computer... your computer is impressive and based on empirical science... so is my work, therefore because we are both scientists".

First of all modern science is what you call inductive, from a sampling of the subset you make inferences about the whole set. There's nothing wrong with this approach but what Darwkins and the other Darwinians do is to pretend that an investigation into natural phenomenon is the same thing as atheistic materialism. It would be laughable if people knew how to separate the real issues.

However, there are a lot of observations they have made with fairly compelling evidence that evolution is in motion and stays in motion on its' own through largely sheer expansive time.

What you have to understand is that evolution does not have one meaning, it has two, they just pretend they are both the same thing. Evolution is defined scientifically as the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time. Darwinian evolution is the a priori (without prior) assumption assumption of universal common descent (a philosophy of natural history), going all the way back to and including the Big Bang.

Evolution is a natural phenomenon, it's the way arctic wild life adapts to the arctic cold, white coats and all. Everything adapts, changes in seemingly random patterns and change almost constantly in a vast array of diversity. What is passing for evolution is an atheistic philosophy that is nothing more then one long argument against creation. It's very important that you understand the difference because the Life Sciences, especially genetics, are the fastest growing and perhaps, most vital sciences of the modern age. That's why they want to discourage you from learning more about it. Knowledge is power.

These observations go from the micro to the macro, from the molecular level to the level of astrophysics. As everyone knows who has studied these things....

I just love the straight forward way you look at this.

My major problem comes down to, "why". Why would God have had us be created over a very long period of time like this. It can be noted even evolutionists have - claimed - to have stumbled onto some of the basic truths of the Bible:

Hang on, we have no idea how long the universe and the planet have been here, all we know from Scripture is that it was 'in the beginning'. Life on this planet is only about 6000 years old. They need continuous evolution over millions and billions of years to explain life being developed from scratch. God created life in an instant, if you can grasp that key principle the rest of this will fall into place fairly easy.

The ordering of creation as set in Genesis is roughly according to their ordering of how they believe things happened. That is, man is not first, there were fish, then birds, and so on. The universe was created in a big bang, in an relative instant.

The heavens were created first, then the earth.

Man was created last, after all the animals and plants.

The sun was created before the moon.

Hugh Ross is a big time Theistic Evolutionist who uses the Creation account as an allegory, a lot like your describing. It's always superficial, they build their evolutionary scenarios on highly simplistic imagery like your describing. What Christians should realize is that phenomenon is something very different from natural history.

However, this does not mean much to me. One reason, besides having seen angels create material things out of thin air... is that every night we dream, and in our dreams we are both the participant observer and the creator and sustainer of our entire virtual dream worlds.

Further, if we look closely at anything in our dreams to try and discern if we are dreaming or not... our own minds will adapt to our observations and provide false evidence to us.

Not sure where your going with this but, some interesting thoughts.

If there is a book, our mind will provide words. If there is a road to travel, our mind will provide everything in the road. If there is a person, our mind will give them behavior and words.

All of this makes the dream more real, but the dream is not real. These details are as false as the lower level details of the trusting mind that won't ever suspect a dream is just a dream.

Though, this sort of argument, too, is not possible to give to such atheists.

Like I said, some interesting thoughts, kind of philosophical. It's a kind of perception vs. reality thing. I enjoyed it.

Things have simmered down in here quite a bit, if your interested in looking into evolution, creation and some of the theology and philosophy involved I'd be interested in hearing more from you. I think evolutionary biology is one of the most interesting subjects in academics and science. I hope we get a chance to talk about how life changes over time without the delusions of guys like Dawkins getting the details all muddy.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Papias]

Midlst wrote:

Okay, I like to get counteropinions on matters I believe in, or have confidence on, so soliciting this here in regards to origins theology:

Sounds good. You'll find plenty of diverse points of view here. Enjoy your search, and welcome to the forums!

... having bothered to go and get the counteropinions from many of the leading evolutionist pundits such as Dawkins and Sagan ...

You might want to read up on the many Christians who can and do explain evolution. The view of evolution given by Dawkins is colored by his atheism, and Sagan of course is an astronomer, not a biologist anyway. You may have gotten an atheistic view, not a Christian one.

For instance, here is Dr. Francis Collins, an evangelical Christian, explaining how these same scientific facts helped lead him to Jesus.

[official] Francis Collins - The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence of Belief - YouTube

Others to check out include examples like:

http://www.amazon.com/Evolutionary-...9679&sr=8-1&keywords=evolutionary+creationism

Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution (P.S.): Kenneth R. Miller: 9780061233500: Amazon.com: Books
and many more.

Problem for me is I have seen quite a bit of the "supernatural", so I knew that none of this was likely true.

That's not a problem. Nothing in evolution excludes the existence of the supernatural, God, Jesus, angels, etc. Again, this sounds like what the atheists say - that the evidence for evolution is somehow evidence against the supernatural. It's not, and more than the evidence for gravity is evidence against the supernatural.

Sadly, that mistake is reinforced by evidence denying creationists, who encourage Christians to think that they have to reject evolution to accept Jesus. The authors above show how false that is.

that there is no room there for God stepping in -- not in any capacity.

Again, I think this is incorrect - an idea misleading Christians, pushed by atheists and creationists. With evolution, there certainly is plenty of room for God - to be directing the whole process, to be supplying beneficial mutations, and so on. After all, I hope we both see God in the process of a sperm+ egg growing to a baby - and in that process all the chemistry is well known. So in both those processes, God is present.


No, I believe their entire edifice is corrupted with false evidence. Something is giving them the evidence they are seeking for.


Perhaps. I agree that there certainly is plenty of evidence for evolution (specifically, for common descent - the idea that life evolved from a single cell to the animals & plants around us today). That's why most Christains worldwide are in churches that allow agreement with evolution, and why most of the support for evolution in the United States comes from Christians.

For instance, acceptance of evolution is allowed by Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians, Catholics, the United Church of Christ, and dozens more denominations. Evolution is rejected by Jehovah's witnesses, many Baptist churchs, Muslims, 7th day adventists, and so on.

A good summary of a lot of this evidence can be found here: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

With all that evidence (and a lot more), it's difficult for a Christian to sound rational while denying it. In fact, the perception that Christians are denying evolution is one of the biggest reasons so many Christians are leaving Christianity.

With all that evidence, I think you have hit on an interesting possibility. With your idea, I see these as ways a Christian can respond to the evidence.

1. See all that evidence as the delusion from God in Thess. This may raise a bunch of theological problems (like God being the source of such a huge and far reaching deception).
2. See all that evidence as a delusion from demons. This solves the theological issues in #1, but raises others issues, like being anti-science and the idea that God is impotent.
3. See all that evidence as real, and that evolution is simply how God created. This is the view of the Christians cited above, as well as my best guess as to what's going on.
4. Deny that all that evidence exists. This is a common approach among some Christians, but it seems to be killing Christianity, and doesn't always feel honest.
5. there are other responses too, I'm sure.

In Christ Jesus-

Papias


P.S. Oh, and Mark, thanks for keeping our thread going. That brought me back to check here, and find this interesting post by Midst.

 

[gluadys]

Okay, I like to get counteropinions on matters I believe in, or have confidence on, so soliciting this here in regards to origins theology:

Welcome to the forum. Hope you enjoy the discussion.

Brief Background: I am well read in modern evolutionary theories, having bothered to go and get the counteropinions from many of the leading evolutionist pundits such as Dawkins and Sagan (having read their books, seen some of the videos, and so on).

Problem for me is I have seen quite a bit of the "supernatural", so I knew that none of this was likely true.

I don't quite understand the connection here. I don't think anyone claims evolution is supernatural, so I don't see how familiarity with the supernatural would be relevant to discussing evolution.

My conclusion is that a lot of the evidence they are finding are "false signs".

I realize that is difficult to believe, but I have seen there is that capacity.

Could you give some specific examples?

Dawkins and Sagan both rely heavily on strawman type of argumentation for many of their arguments against creationism. I think they would not have to do this if they had firm ground to stand on.

I tend to agree with you here, but I don't think they use their anti-religious arguments as evidence to support evolution. Creationists who deny evolution, on the other hand, use almost nothing other than arguments against evolution (mostly straw man arguments) as "evidence" to support creationism--as if there were only two options: be an atheist who accepts evolution or be a believer who accepts a strict fundamentalist view of young-earth creationism.

There are, of course, many other options. You will find some of them listed in the thread "The Full Spectrum of Christian Beliefs on Origins" http://www.christianforums.com/t842473/ Check it out.

Evolutionists also like to try and redefine "faith" as "believing without evidence". This sort of message is strongly propagandized in society. But it is the opposite of true.

We have faith based on evidence. Consider James pointing out that the demons know God exists, and he calls that "faith without deeds which is dead".



What I believe is surely based on evidence.

I find a lot of people confuse "evidence" with "conviction" or with "testimony". Faith cannot be based on evidence. Faith is the assurance or certain conviction of things hoped for, of things not seen. And as Paul goes on to say, when we see the fulfilment of hope, we no longer need hope (or faith) because we now see and have the reality. Evidence is always seen, so faith, being an assurance of things not (yet) seen, cannot be based on evidence.

I would like to know what evidence you think you have for your faith.

Whether dead or alive faith, that is up to God, but I have confidence it is alive.

Confidence is a wonderful thing, but it is not evidence.

It might be noted, that on studying modern evolutionists viewpoints I do, however, agree with them that there is no room there for God stepping in -- not in any capacity.

If you agree with atheists, no wonder you come to the same conclusions as them. Why does God need to "step in" to his creation to do anything in it? Is God not already present in all God has made? Is he not always active in all natural things? Scripture would seem to say so. Look at Matthew 5:45 and Matthew 6:26, 28-29. Her Jesus speaks of four things God does every day: makes the sun shine, makes rain fall, provides food for the birds, makes plants produce beautiful flowers.

Note that we do not call any of these things "miracles" (though maybe we should) and that by and large, we have pretty sound and well-accepted scientific explanations of how these things happen.

Still, the testimony of scripture is that these are actions of God. And why not? God's world is not closed to his activity, just because we can describe it impersonally in a science text.

Further, if God would do this, then why have such an evolution at all?

Shall the pot dispute with the potter about how it was made?

No, I believe their entire edifice is corrupted with false evidence. Something is giving them the evidence they are seeking for. They believe in lies because they *want* to believe these things. This is their preference. So, somehow, creation is providing what it is they want to see. But this only deludes them.


Now, how or why... in Thessalonians, God is said to send people a great lie. There is also speaking of false signs being given to the nations to lead them against God and his people.

Do you have anything more than wishful thinking by which to characterize evidence as "lies"? If they are lies, show us where they err.

 

[juvenissun]

Okay, I like to get counteropinions on matters I believe in, or have confidence on, so soliciting this here in regards to origins theology:


Brief Background: I am well read in modern evolutionary theories, having bothered to go and get the counteropinions from many of the leading evolutionist pundits such as Dawkins and Sagan (having read their books, seen some of the videos, and so on).

Problem for me is I have seen quite a bit of the "supernatural", so I knew that none of this was likely true.

My conclusion is that a lot of the evidence they are finding are "false signs".

I realize that is difficult to believe, but I have seen there is that capacity.



Dawkins and Sagan both rely heavily on strawman type of argumentation for many of their arguments against creationism. I think they would not have to do this if they had firm ground to stand on.

Evolutionists also like to try and redefine "faith" as "believing without evidence". This sort of message is strongly propagandized in society. But it is the opposite of true.

We have faith based on evidence. Consider James pointing out that the demons know God exists, and he calls that "faith without deeds which is dead".



What I believe is surely based on evidence.



Whether dead or alive faith, that is up to God, but I have confidence it is alive.


It might be noted, that on studying modern evolutionists viewpoints I do, however, agree with them that there is no room there for God stepping in -- not in any capacity. Further, if God would do this, then why have such an evolution at all?


No, I believe their entire edifice is corrupted with false evidence. Something is giving them the evidence they are seeking for. They believe in lies because they *want* to believe these things. This is their preference. So, somehow, creation is providing what it is they want to see. But this only deludes them.


Now, how or why... in Thessalonians, God is said to send people a great lie. There is also speaking of false signs being given to the nations to lead them against God and his people.

The best way to deal with evolution theory and evolutionist is to take offense.

Question any so-called the evidence of evolution. None of them are solid at the end. Unfortunately, in order to do this, the offender needs to get into deep biological argument, which is not easy to do. But if a non-biologist can apply logic argument to the data used by evolutionists, I believe (based on my experience) it won't take long at all to make them shift their goalposts.

An offer to evolutionist: I haven't done this for a while. Like to have an exercise about it? What is your best evidence? Is it the ring something about genes?

 

[Midst]

Thanks, Mark.

I do have a philosophical take on the matter. I am not in any of these sciences. My perspective is that I have dealt heavily with the supernatural, so that is beyond question for me. Yet, my day job is highly technical and very down to earth. So, I have a very compartmentalized, dual way of living.

Day job, and in many things, I pretend I live in a self-contained environment where 'chance happens to all'. Beyond that, I am very aware that there is more to reality then meets the eye.

I do deal with a scientific like standard of observation in these matters: problem is when dealing with supernatural beings, or even supernatural realities, another major rule comes forward. This rule is that the observer effects what is observed. Not at all unlike what has been seen in quantum physics.

All of the rules of observation also bleed into the rules Jesus put forth in the gospels, including the rules of faith. "Rules". Jesus could do no miracles in certain places, because there was no faith. They had negative expectations. Whereas in other cases there was positive expectations. And these expectations of the observer directly effected what would happen.

Another critical rule I find in the gospels is that the supernatural and the natural are well entwined. And further, that one must take an extremely cautious viewpoint when it comes to ascertaining what one does know, versus what one does not know. Therefore, I hold a very strong, "I do not know" attitude on a vast many things.

So, in terms of origins, I have studied the atheist viewpoints. And I come away with a number of observations, many not unlike your own:

1. Some of these main pundits are very smart human beings. But they are just human beings. They have only lived for short periods of time. There is only so much time they have had to think out matters. There is only so much time they have had to study. And study breeds biases, requiring more study from alternative, contradicting sources to solve. They are not at all good at this, so clearly their conclusions are reeked with bias, and are bound to be so even when this is not directly detectable.

2. God, and "the supernatural" (to give a vague, pseudo-all encompassing term) are entities, individuals. Sticking just to God, God is the elephant in the room all people are aware of. The person they are ignoring. Now, they go and try and prove God is there, without acknowledging the evidence they already have. This is rather like ignoring someone at a party, and then yelling at them in a mocking tone, "So, can't you speak up? Are you there? Will you say nothing?" Bad results are positively guaranteed.

3. In their attempts to make observations based on the holy standard of the scientific method they are not including the possibility that their expectations may effect their observations. Despite proof of this in quantum sciences. Despite that this proof echoes everything Jesus said. This is yet another fatal flaw and it will plague their results.


4. I am aware of the fact that creatures have capacity to adapt to their environments, this is observable. Is this some sort of rule or law, I do not know. I am comfortable not knowing. I enjoy looking into these matters. So I am curious. But one can take on many theories and many facts, and at the same time find nothing entirely conclusive.

A bit like having a collection of tools. They can be used, if necessary. Or not.


One collects theories as one collects tools. Situations may arise where a certain theory can be treated as if it is correct, and observable results may happen. For instance, one can suddenly use those nails and that hammer to make a sign. Or, one might have a chance to use that flintstone and high carbon knife with some tinder to make a fire.


But for me, that is all these things are. Not high truths. Simply temporary instruments of temporary need of current truth that at one juncture of time may be relevant, and in the past and future may be entirely irrelevant.



5. I have noticed they are spreading deep and wide across the land. I do not have a problem dealing with atheists though they treat things I know are true as if they are not true. They are arrogant, prideful, presumptuous, and extraordinary hypocrites, vain in their "knowledge". While condemning as many else as less then intelligent, less knowing then their own selves. Oblivious to how well their condemnations fit their own person.

I have also researched some back, and noticed how this has grown and spread. It has had ups and downs. From the 18th century, 19th, 20th century. I would remark it has helped spawn Communism and Nazism. And seen both fail, only for its' own self to be reborn yet again and in many ways stronger.


6. I view the world, the Heavens and the earth, as being created thousands of years ago. I do believe that it feels like billions, even trillions of years ago. But this is because of all of the detail. All of the human and celestial lives.


7. I do not have much trouble talking to atheists. I simply, of course, avoid speaking of personal experiences and evidence. Online, to a certain degree, I even do this personally, unless I want to expose my resume.

I find them truly narrow minded, whereas I find their hypocrisy in seeing "Christians" as narrow minded daunting. The "Christians' they speak of are imaginary strawmen. Worst case cartoon examples, where they are almost invariably in countries with a very high number of Christians, so they have no excuse.


...


I will say, in all of this, I see it all as somesort of horrible trap for them. It is, in this sense, deplorable to me. They are making bets and setting very high investments. And they will lose, and they are already losing -- their life is draining away, and this does not make them happy.

 

[Midst]

Thanks, Papias.


I should add, as these are not my fields, I do keep an open mind on these viewpoints.

As I was just saying to Mark, I have in my own outlook a very strong "I do not know" stance I take. Where I also hold and collect many different theories. To me, some of these theories may even be practical and usable. But, they are ultimately just theories to me. Not ultimate truths.

I have watched some of the Christian viewpoints, via some videos on Amazon, and despite the crying detractors in the comments I found them positing some strong and fascinating positions.


Above all, I just find that there are enormous realms of possibility here: like I said, it is very difficult to observe and know the very far away, the very small, and the very large. So this is plenty of room for unknowns.

The improbabilities of existence, by any standard, are extraordinary. The life of a cell, the improbability of life on earth, on and on it goes.


It seems as if to me a game stretched out before these people, where they just are grasping and receiving.... what is just outside of their reach.

 

[Midst]

The best way to deal with evolution theory and evolutionist is to take offense.

Question any so-called the evidence of evolution. None of them are solid at the end. Unfortunately, in order to do this, the offender needs to get into deep biological argument, which is not easy to do. But if a non-biologist can apply logic argument to the data used by evolutionists, I believe (based on my experience) it won't take long at all to make them shift their goalposts.

An offer to evolutionist: I haven't done this for a while. Like to have an exercise about it? What is your best evidence? Is it the ring something about genes?

I have seen and read some of the arguments against them on the very small level. The life of a single human cell is extraordinary. How many of these very small creatures have formed their capabilities is very difficult to explain from a random selection viewpoint.

Dawkins has tried to get at a number of these arguments in some of his later books.

I really did not come away convinced. I felt he was a professional apologist.

Ultimately, my own viewpoint is that observations themselves are not necessarily true.

So, it does not strike me as very necessary to even dig into the details too much.

I felt what tapestry they have wrapped around themselves is very impressive and daunting.


Though they know they are trying to understand "everything" and surely do not have the means - and especially not the time - to do so.

The game they are playing is to try and be the "smartest", really most brilliant of people. I contrast brilliance there with smarts, because brilliance implies virtue of being more then just intelligence.

And that fails on pride right off.

They miss the forest for the trees. They are lost in details and personal ambition and have not noticed they are not even very happy.

 

[juvenissun]

I have seen and read some of the arguments against them on the very small level. The life of a single human cell is extraordinary. How many of these very small creatures have formed their capabilities is very difficult to explain from a random selection viewpoint.

Dawkins has tried to get at a number of these arguments in some of his later books.

I really did not come away convinced. I felt he was a professional apologist.

Ultimately, my own viewpoint is that observations themselves are not necessarily true.

So, it does not strike me as very necessary to even dig into the details too much.

I felt what tapestry they have wrapped around themselves is very impressive and daunting.


Though they know they are trying to understand "everything" and surely do not have the means - and especially not the time - to do so.

The game they are playing is to try and be the "smartest", really most brilliant of people. I contrast brilliance there with smarts, because brilliance implies virtue of being more then just intelligence.

And that fails on pride right off.

They miss the forest for the trees. They are lost in details and personal ambition and have not noticed they are not even very happy.

Exactly. That is why I have no fear but confidence to defeat ANY evolutional arguments even I knows very little about biology. At the first level, many of the so-called evidences are full of logic holes. Just pick up one or two would be enough to shut them off. At the next level, rarely they came up with an "excellent" evidence of evolution. Let's say it is one on a bullet proof level. Fine. Then the question they DEFINITELY can not answer is: why should that be the ONLY example they could find? If evolution is a general process, then that bullet proof example should exist nearly everywhere. (I guess that would indeed be an excellent case for TE people. God is working right there )

So, after all, I have a full sympathy to those poor evolutionists.

 

[Midst]

Welcome to the forum. Hope you enjoy the discussion.

I don't quite understand the connection here. I don't think anyone claims evolution is supernatural, so I don't see how familiarity with the supernatural would be relevant to discussing evolution.

... (snip)....

Do you have anything more than wishful thinking by which to characterize evidence as "lies"? If they are lies, show us where they err.

I will have to stop right there, I recognize the angle you are going at here and it is singular: you are approaching my viewpoint as if I am someone you are familiar with and it is a perspective you know. But, it is not.

I did not say the viewpoint of evolution has anything to do with the supernatural, I did not say that the evidence they are relying on are lies in the way *you mean* "lies", and I did not say I agree with atheists in the way you replied I meant.

So, you either have to slow down and go, "What is this viewpoint, I have never come across it before, let me try and understand it". Or, "I won't try and understand this perspective".

In the later case, it would be impossible to have a conversation. So, your choice.

First, on the "supernatural" bit. It has to do with everything. So, it surely has to do with origins, and it has to do with evolution. The first thing one can note here is simply: There is no supernatural. This is just a word. You know this, I know this.

To a certain degree, the "supernatural" is simply just "the natural" that has yet to be understood. Not unlike even a saying well known to evolutionists, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" and "any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science".

To a certain degree the virtual - theoretical - bubble which these pundits have created rule out anything unknown. They have created a dividing line between "the natural" and "the supernatural". There is a dividing line, and this dividing line they have used as the bulwark for their disinformation. It is the kernel of truth in their mass of lies.

That true dividing line is there is, what we vaguely call, for instance, "different realms", or even different dimensions of existence. There are, for instance, realms for the material world, and then there are realms of the spiritual world.

They are perfectly capable of admitting the possibility of the existence of different realms. But they simply are absolutely unwilling to give any credence to the possibility that people have known anything about these realms and classified them in any correct way with all of their religions and myths.

This means they are missing the forest for the trees.

They set up their entire edifice on false terms.

They are narrow minded, just as they condemn others of.


Their observations, if taken at face value, assuming that the observer can not effect what is observed are true. Is one way of putting it. However, reality, even the reality of this material world, we know is not as firm as people would often have it be.

Your expectations do effect what you find. Faith does matter here: the very principle Jesus pointed out, that if you have faith you can get what you expect received. If you do not, you get nothing.

Therefore, when they are out there, looking for evidence, they are not as the lepers believing they might be able to get healed despite all contrary evidence. They are as the cynical Pharisees and Sadducees who are expecting no manner of miracle. And so this is what they will find.


Put another way: the overall model, that reality (this material reality we human beings find ourselves in) is static and not something capable of reacting to observations and the expectations of the observer is deeply, blatantly wrong. So, everything else is wrong. The very standard of scientific methodology is flawed. It works so far, but no further.

It is no binoculars. It is useful for the near, the close, the human scale of matters. Put it far in the future, far in the past, very small, or very large -- it fails. Even put it on the human scale and there is a vast array which is missing for there is but an illusion of staticness, of normality in all observations.

They do not have microscopes for perceiving these things, and no telescopes. It is the illusion of human perspective. Not at all unlike how human beings are so deeply flawed in their material capacities in the first place -- we have gigantic blind spots in our eyes, we can only see on an extremely narrow wave of electromagnetic waves, we can only hear on a very narrow band, we have incredibly poor memory that we think is pretty good.... in so many ways, in everything we perceive, we "complete the picture", taking a little and making it much more then it is.


So, really, consider I have even presented this in relatively materialistic terms. But, this is a staggering reality that is not being considered.

Of course, many Christians do consider it. After all, what are observations of the material world worth when our life is in a world to come? What are the observations of fleas and ants and cells worth, when we have no observation of God?


The concept of the flaw of perception is not unlike a detective in a room with a suspect, where a detective has a severe flaw: they can not understand what a lie is. They take everything the suspect says as being true.

This is what I mean by "lie".

These pundits approach the suspect, material reality, as if the suspect is incapable of lying. Reality is lying is the norm for the suspect, not the rare, and surely something that is a very real danger.

But they are incapable of even perceiving this possibility.


As for going deeper in this: people often make the assumption that such lies might be detectable easily. Water into wine, for instance. It was water, now it is wine. Where is the complexity there?

Now, obviously, this is not a "lie", it really happened. But the eyes that see the wine and the tongue which tastes it says it is "wine". But, it *was* water.


You mention "wishful thinking" and this is exactly the product of their wishful thinking. Such wishful thinking can most surely become manifest in reality. It remains a lie, however. Just as someone who has a pleasant life in sin, their life is as a lie, because the pleasantness will end. It is as a dream that fades and is gone.


There is no truth for them because they believe what they want to believe based on their preferences.

They, obviously, prefer there be no God. Or so they think, anyway, as they have no idea of anything about God. In reality this sort of preference is like preferring one's self to lose at the lottery instead of winning the eight figure powerball.


Observations on reality regularly lie and they lie far beyond simply tricks of the mind.


I suppose here, if you have never seen or found a chance to believe in extreme miracles, then all I might be giving or arguing is plausible doubt.

Though, every night we see the capacity for our own minds to create bewildering realities of extraordinary complexity. We find these realities entirely plausible in that state. Further, in only an extremely short period of years mere human beings have been able to create truly vast and virtual worlds in and with computers: via gaming, via cgi in the fictional media, for instance.


To make the assumption that when one is making observations, they might not be as playing chess with someone else.... is to make a fatal assumption. They might as well be a fly finding themselves in the luxuriating waters of a predatory plant about to consume them.

 

[mark kennedy]

Hey Midst,

I see your having fun with the regulars, I wanted to ask you about something:

However, this does not mean much to me. One reason, besides having seen angels create material things out of thin air... is that every night we dream, and in our dreams we are both the participant observer and the creator and sustainer of our entire virtual dream worlds.

Are you talking about Carl Jung type dream interpretation of just building an analogy?

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Midst]

Hey Midst,

I see your having fun with the regulars, I wanted to ask you about something:

However, this does not mean much to me. One reason, besides having seen angels create material things out of thin air... is that every night we dream, and in our dreams we are both the participant observer and the creator and sustainer of our entire virtual dream worlds.
​

Are you talking about Carl Jung type dream interpretation or just building an analogy?

Grace and peace,
Mark

As far as I know, it is my own observation. It seems like a pretty basic one to make and I am sure others have come to the same conclusion. It may be that God showed it to me, of course, and I may have simply not noticed.

It is true that we make our own worlds in dreams every night, and like Jesus we live in that world though are also as like God controlling and sustaining everything.

So, I point this out with Atheists, and some who argue that the concept of God and Jesus being two yet one is not at all alien to people as they claim. As they do this every night when they sleep.

Granted, had God not created the world, what would we use to build our dreams with?

I find there are a lot of interesting things to discover if one takes this under consideration.

It can involve origins and many things. It helps me understand the nation of creation, as well, how God is both a part of creation and distant from creation.

Part of the concept there, in the origins analogy, is that it can be creation can react on its' own. I do consider this a possibility. Paul pointed out, "creation groans for the revealing of the sons of God".

Because the substance of this material reality is not as materialists think it is.

And also one can consider such things as Jesus commanding the rain to stop, and other matters.

 

[Percivale]

Midst:

Put another way: the overall model, that reality (this material reality we human beings find ourselves in) is static and not something capable of reacting to observations and the expectations of the observer is deeply, blatantly wrong. So, everything else is wrong. The very standard of scientific methodology is flawed. It works so far, but no further.

It is no binoculars. It is useful for the near, the close, the human scale of matters. Put it far in the future, far in the past, very small, or very large -- it fails. Even put it on the human scale and there is a vast array which is missing for there is but an illusion of staticness, of normality in all observations.

The idea that the evidence we see actually changes depending what we want to see is testable, and can quickly be proven wrong. If it were true, then a creationist and an evolutionist could each take a sample of a rock and test its age with radioisotope dating, and each come to results that confirm their beliefs. However, in the real world that does not happen. The rock shows the same age no matter who tests it.

Most of us feel that very large things like mountains are majestic, and the vastness of the universe makes us feel worshipful. I have a similar feeling about God's using vast time to prepare the earth for us. Everything happened as soon as the universe was ready. The first stars ran their course to produce the elements from which our earth was formed, our sun lit and as soon as it was steady enough and the earth condensed into land and oceans, God created life, and from it formed organisms that began transforming the atmosphere until it was ready for more complex creatures, when he formed them from that life, guided them to fill the earth, then made mankind when earth was ready. I find that wonderful, more glorious than simply making everything complete. And I'd much rather be in a rational universe where everything has a history and an explanation than one where you only find illusions when you look for truth.

 

[Midst]

Midst:

The idea that the evidence we see actually changes depending what we want to see is testable, and can quickly be proven wrong. If it were true, then a creationist and an evolutionist could each take a sample of a rock and test its age with radioisotope dating, and each come to results that confirm their beliefs. However, in the real world that does not happen. The rock shows the same age no matter who tests it.

Mmmm, that is very gullible to me. I am highly skeptical.

The fact is that everything you and I are seeing or hearing, we can both agree on and be very wrong, as I already noted. In a sense, we may be correct. Correct enough to have conversation. But that is about it.

You can even argue the sky is blue. Looks blue to me, too. But it isn't. Technically.

Dating very old things is not evidence in and of its' self. It is some sort of evidence, but not conclusive evidence. It is not like using binoculars even, because these systems rely on theories. If those theories have errors, then the calculations are wrong. No way to literally prove it because no one can go back in time and say, "I am there to prove it".

As far as theories go, it does all seem quite sound. We can observe the half life of certain atoms, and make calculations to how they should break down. We have some degree of accuracy we can prove over some level of human history where we have multiple real sources of evidence.

But, ultimately many things are relied on for longer term dating and it is not an exact science. This is why multiple opinions are solicited when dating very old things. The hope is this work is done independently, but ultimately, it is not going to be so independent of work because everyone is working from the same set of standards commonly accepted today.

None of this is important, however. I find, in general, the theories to seem pretty sound, as far as theories go. But, like I pointed out, they are as homicide cops interviewing a suspect whom they believe can not lie. They have never even heard of a lie.

And, I am quite different. I expect the suspect to lie.

I understand this is a near impossible concept for you - or most people - to entertain. At best, it is just a philosophical concept. Miracles and other realms do not *really* exist. Angels and Heaven are not *really* there. For these people.

Theoretically, they may even accept the concept. But it is not real to them.

So, how can you make them cynical? They have to see what is possible. And no one is going to show them.

Most of us feel that very large things like mountains are majestic, and the vastness of the universe makes us feel worshipful. I have a similar feeling about God's using vast time to prepare the earth for us. Everything happened as soon as the universe was ready. The first stars ran their course to produce the elements from which our earth was formed, our sun lit and as soon as it was steady enough and the earth condensed into land and oceans, God created life, and from it formed organisms that began transforming the atmosphere until it was ready for more complex creatures, when he formed them from that life, guided them to fill the earth, then made mankind when earth was ready. I find that wonderful, more glorious than simply making everything complete. And I'd much rather be in a rational universe where everything has a history and an explanation than one where you only find illusions when you look for truth.

I really get hit when people say this sort of thing to me, in a judgmental sort of way. I searched for truth as a young person. And I found truth.

I have seen and do even still deal with things people would die to see and know. Yet, there is plenty I am still searching for. But, I searched at the call of Jesus when reading the Gospels. I initially went the science route, but found this was better.

And I was even quickly - and amply -rewarded.

I have seen proof of angels, of life after death, of many things far more marvelous of this. In fact, I have a problem because knowledge does not save a person.

I watch movies where people go crazy for "finally finding extraterrestrial" life, or hear about how scientists pore billions into trying to figure out something about dark matter... and it is just so ironic.

It is comedic, it is almost painful.

Then what happens, they complain when they get in some accident or have some sickness or injury.

Never looking for God, never looking for proof, and then they complain when they discover they did not have the faith they needed to have when they really needed it.

It is sad, in a way.

But if you are wondering if I am happy, you have to be joking. God provides everything for me. It is a sublime existence to consider the universe when one knows God created it -- and not only that, but God sustains it. And so much more. To have seen the glories of the heavens, the real heavens, and to understand how those truths tie into the **metaphor** of physical reality? Mmmm. It is a truly fine and rare wine, near impossible to get.

To know. When others doubt. To not even be able to forget, this too, is wonderful. Of course, it makes sin more painful, and one's faults are all the more visible. But you learn to cope with that and trust God's forgiving and ever bountiful nature of mercy.


So, yeah, I pity these guys.

But, like I said, I am really talking about the atheists. "No one ever knows anything as they should", is a true statement. It is a deep statement. It is one good to understand.

There is this illusion of knowing that can make us human beings prideful. That is a type of pleasure, but it is not worth the price. Humility, instead, is the truth about one's own self, and that is what gives true bounty.


Humility tells us our senses are weak. That we do not know everything. That we should never assume we know almost anything.

And this should be the "scientist's" stance, but is it? They sometimes make the token pose in that direction, but not really.

 

[gluadys]

I did not say the viewpoint of evolution has anything to do with the supernatural,

Looks like we can have an interesting discussion. Now here is what you did say:

I am well read in modern evolutionary theories, having bothered to go and get the counteropinions from many of the leading evolutionist pundits such as Dawkins and Sagan (having read their books, seen some of the videos, and so on).

Problem for me is I have seen quite a bit of the "supernatural", so I knew that none of this was likely true.

Now as I understand that last sentence, you say your experience of the supernatural points to modern evolutionary theories not being true. If I have misread, feel free to clarify.

My confusion comes from this: since evolution has nothing to do with the supernatural, what relevance can your experience of the supernatural have to the truth or untruth of modern evolutionary theories?

I did not say that the evidence they are relying on are lies in the way *you mean* "lies",

That's fine. Can you expand then on what you meant by this sentence:

My conclusion is that a lot of the evidence they are finding are "false signs".

and I did not say I agree with atheists in the way you replied I meant.

You made this statement:

I do, however, agree with them that there is no room there for God stepping in -- not in any capacity.

Here you state clearly that you agree with an atheist position. Obviously your reasons--which I hope we can get into in more depth--are not the same as those of atheists. But I know of only two groups of people who accept this position: those who deny evolution and some atheists who accept evolution. It is interesting that you recognize you are agreeing with atheists on this point.

But most believers, and even many agnostics and atheists do not agree that faith and evolution are incompatible.

So, you either have to slow down and go, "What is this viewpoint, I have never come across it before, let me try and understand it". Or, "I won't try and understand this perspective".

Oh, I would certainly prefer to go with the first; that is one of the gifts of a new perspective.

First, on the "supernatural" bit. . . . The first thing one can note here is simply: There is no supernatural. This is just a word. You know this, I know this.

To a certain degree, the "supernatural" is simply just "the natural" that has yet to be understood. Not unlike even a saying well known to evolutionists, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" and "any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science".

This is a view I have heard before; it has a fairly long history in Christian theology. I rather like it. Have you heard the view, often expressed in the early modern era (when most scientists were also Christian) that in the study of nature, researchers were discovering what God had done and how God had done it?

Take, for example, Newton's experiments with prisms which showed the colour spectrum that makes up visible light. In effect, Newton showed us how God makes rainbows; and Newton certainly did not stop believing in God because he had learned the mechanics of rainbow-making in nature. To use your words he had sufficiently analyzed magic and turned it into science. But whether we call it magic (or mystery or miracle) or science, it is still God's work.

Note too, that Newton's explanation of the physics of light does not provide any room for God "stepping in" to produce the visible spectrum. Yet there must be very few Christians who believe we are forced to choose atheism along with Newton's explanation of the spectrum of the rainbow or reject his physics to believe in God.

So, if we don't accept this forced choice for other fields of science, why must we accept it for evolution?

To a certain degree the virtual - theoretical - bubble which these pundits have created rule out anything unknown. They have created a dividing line between "the natural" and "the supernatural". There is a dividing line, and this dividing line they have used as the bulwark for their disinformation. It is the kernel of truth in their mass of lies.

The term I have usually heard is "testable" not "unknown". After all much of the business of science is to explore what is unknown in the universe.

I take your point about the dividing line between natural and supernatural being artificial. In fact, I have seen the same point made by scientists. Some point out that many natural events were considered supernatural until a logical physical causal explanation was found for it. So the dividing line, if there is such, between natural and supernatural is, at the very least, flexible. And it tends to be situated at the boundary between phenomena for which we do and do not have adequate scientific explanations--in itself a moving boundary.

That true dividing line is there is, what we vaguely call, for instance, "different realms", or even different dimensions of existence. There are, for instance, realms for the material world, and then there are realms of the spiritual world.

Yes, I can see that. It kind of fits with some eschatological ideas I have been toying with. But I don't see any relevance to evolution here.

They are perfectly capable of admitting the possibility of the existence of different realms. But they simply are absolutely unwilling to give any credence to the possibility that people have known anything about these realms and classified them in any correct way with all of their religions and myths.

This means they are missing the forest for the trees.

They set up their entire edifice on false terms.

They are narrow minded, just as they condemn others of.

"They" being who?

Their observations, if taken at face value, assuming that the observer can not effect what is observed are true. Is one way of putting it. However, reality, even the reality of this material world, we know is not as firm as people would often have it be.

Even in the material sense. The quantum basis of physics apparently consists of waves of probability in a vast space that dwarfs the components of the atom.

Your expectations do effect what you find.

In quantum physics they certainly do. But scientific researchers also find what they do not expect to find. One recent example is Mary Schweitzer's discovery of remnants of soft tissue in an 80 million-year old dinosaur fossil. Although the discovery has been overblown by young-earth creationists, it is still amazing in its own right, and was certainly not expected.

Therefore, when they are out there, looking for evidence, they are not as the lepers believing they might be able to get healed despite all contrary evidence. They are as the cynical Pharisees and Sadducees who are expecting no manner of miracle. And so this is what they will find.

Again, who is "they"?
Also, I don't understand the reference to the Pharisees and Sadducees. Were they not the ones Jesus condemned because they were looking for miracles as a sign the Messiah?

Put another way: the overall model, that reality (this material reality we human beings find ourselves in) is static and not something capable of reacting to observations and the expectations of the observer is deeply, blatantly wrong.

I think science has long done away with the Aristotelian notion that the universe is static. Atomic theory, relativity theory, quantum theory, big bang theory, evolutionary theory: all of these point to a dynamic and active universe, not a static one.

There is, of course, a modicum of truth in the idea that the observations and expectations of the observer affect what is observed; but against this, one must also place the reality that many observers and experimenters get the same results even if they have different biases.

So, everything else is wrong. The very standard of scientific methodology is flawed. It works so far, but no further.

It is no binoculars. It is useful for the near, the close, the human scale of matters. Put it far in the future, far in the past, very small, or very large -- it fails.

I find it very strange that Christians promote this type of argument. It basically says that the laws of nature ordained by God for the governance of the universe are not reliable. That does not fit with any concept of creation I know of.

Furthermore, research into the working of the basic forces of nature (gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces) supports the idea that they are invariable over space and time. Until Newton, the force of gravity was understood to be local: a force drawing things within the atmosphere down to the earth. Newton was the first to suggest that gravity had any effect beyond the atmosphere; that gravity permeated the heavens and governed the motions of the stars and planets. Einstein showed that gravity is an effect of the very temporal-spatial structure of the universe. So how could it be anything other than a universal force and one that has always operated and will always operate for the whole existence of the universe?

Then there is this recent report: Three eyes on the sky track laws of Nature 10 billion years ago

So, I just don't see it being true that scientific methodology has no application to the far past or the very distant, the very large or the very small. Indeed, it is only through science that we have discovered extra-galactic space or deep time at all.

They do not have microscopes for perceiving these things, and no telescopes.

Who doesn't? Scientists do. They count the molecules of atmospheric gases in bubbles from ice cores to study climate change over hundreds of thousands of years. And the Hubble Deep Space telescope is taking us to the fringe of the visible universe (much further out and light has not had time to reach us yet) and in doing so, taking us into the earliest days of the history of the universe. Maybe you just don't understand the capacity of modern technology as used in science.

It is the illusion of human perspective. Not at all unlike how human beings are so deeply flawed in their material capacities in the first place -- we have gigantic blind spots in our eyes, we can only see on an extremely narrow wave of electromagnetic waves, we can only hear on a very narrow band, we have incredibly poor memory that we think is pretty good.... in so many ways, in everything we perceive, we "complete the picture", taking a little and making it much more then it is.

That is why we use writing and recording devices and technology that "perceives" what we cannot.

So, really, consider I have even presented this in relatively materialistic terms. But, this is a staggering reality that is not being considered.

I grant that everything I have named shows us the material world; it cannot be used to view those other realms of existence you mentioned. And that is precisely why science, qua science, cannot consider that staggering reality. As human beings, scientists can, of course, just as you and I can; but then they are in the same position as the rest of us; they have no professional expertise outside of the realms that science is limited to.

Of course, many Christians do consider it. After all, what are observations of the material world worth when our life is in a world to come? What are the observations of fleas and ants and cells worth, when we have no observation of God?

Do you think God will give anyone a life in the world to come who scorns the one in which we are now placed? Do you remember the parable of the talents?

The concept of the flaw of perception is not unlike a detective in a room with a suspect, where a detective has a severe flaw: they can not understand what a lie is. They take everything the suspect says as being true.

This is what I mean by "lie".

These pundits approach the suspect, material reality, as if the suspect is incapable of lying. Reality is lying is the norm for the suspect, not the rare, and surely something that is a very real danger.

But they are incapable of even perceiving this possibility.

In short, your conclusion seems to be that material observations are meaningless and can tell us nothing about the material world. Naturally, that attitude makes you impervious to all evidence and justifies ignoring it.

As for going deeper in this: people often make the assumption that such lies might be detectable easily. Water into wine, for instance. It was water, now it is wine. Where is the complexity there?

Now, obviously, this is not a "lie", it really happened. But the eyes that see the wine and the tongue which tastes it says it is "wine". But, it *was* water.

I hope Calminian takes you up on this: so Jesus did not really change the water into wine, eh?

There is no truth for them because they believe what they want to believe based on their preferences.

They, obviously, prefer there be no God. Or so they think, anyway, as they have no idea of anything about God. In reality this sort of preference is like preferring one's self to lose at the lottery instead of winning the eight figure power ball.

Who is "they"?

Observations on reality regularly lie and they lie far beyond simply tricks of the mind.

Examples?

I suppose here, if you have never seen or found a chance to believe in extreme miracles, then all I might be giving or arguing is plausible doubt.

Though, every night we see the capacity for our own minds to create bewildering realities of extraordinary complexity. We find these realities entirely plausible in that state. Further, in only an extremely short period of years mere human beings have been able to create truly vast and virtual worlds in and with computers: via gaming, via cgi in the fictional media, for instance.


To make the assumption that when one is making observations, they might not be as playing chess with someone else.... is to make a fatal assumption. They might as well be a fly finding themselves in the luxuriating waters of a predatory plant about to consume them.

One Hindu school of thought is that the whole universe is a dream in the mind of Brahman and will cease to exist when Brahman awakes. So, in that sense, all existence is a dream.

But one might also ask: does God dream fiction or reality?

 

[Percivale]

None of this is important, however. I find, in general, the theories to seem pretty sound, as far as theories go. But, like I pointed out, they are as homicide cops interviewing a suspect whom they believe can not lie. They have never even heard of a lie.

And, I am quite different. I expect the suspect to lie.

Midst, I understand you to mean the scientific results can be lies. I have two questions: Who is lying? God? He created the natural world. And what motive do you have for believing it to be lies? What do you lose by not believing the scientific findings (I see the age of the earth as one of these, unlike naturalistic evolution, which is more of an interpretation based on atheistic assumptions).

I have had just enough experience of the supernatural (prophecy/word of knowledge) to know from that atheism is wrong. The cosmological and moral arguments probably contribute to my certainty of God even more than that though.

 

[Midst]

Midst, I understand you to mean the scientific results can be lies. I have two questions: Who is lying? God? He created the natural world. And what motive do you have for believing it to be lies? What do you lose by not believing the scientific findings (I see the age of the earth as one of these, unlike naturalistic evolution, which is more of an interpretation based on atheistic assumptions).

I have had just enough experience of the supernatural (prophecy/word of knowledge) to know from that atheism is wrong. The cosmological and moral arguments probably contribute to my certainty of God even more than that though.

I see, I thank you for your information, that explains your own perspective better.

I don't believe nor disbelieve the scientific findings. My motives here are I have extraordinary pressure to be right. When I am incorrect in my beliefs, I get slammed hard. I have had this happen multiple times before, and for whatever reason, God made me pay a deep price.

I will also be so bold and blunt to say I have had enough supernatural - "supernatural" - experience to question everything I "see with my eyes and hear with my ears".

For whatever reason on that, as well. I do not yet know, fully, the reason for these disclosures.

I will state that Heaven is very much not like earth, as little of it as I understand, and this is reflected by the vast strangeness seen in Revelation and Ezekiel, to give two very good examples.

"Lie" is a human word, and what I mean by that is it can be said to be "black" and "white". There is either "truth" or there is "lie". But, this is not the case, because "we never truly know anything as we should". There are impartial truths, there are incomplete truths, there are sarcasms, there are downright outright seeming lies which are intended to bring us to the truth for clear banality or wrongness of them.

In Second Thessalonians you read of God sending the world at "the end", a "great lie", because they refuse to believe.

With one of the kings of Israel, you see another very fascinating thing: the king complains to a prophet that the prophets never tell him the truth, and demands he now tell him the truth.

The prophet does. He explains he was brought up into Heaven and saw many spirits of the Lord around the Lord. The Lord asked, "How might I entice the king of Israel to go to battle so he might die".

The prophet reported, 'one suggested this', 'another suggested something else', and 'finally one suggested he will go down and be a lying spirit in the mouths of the prophets and that will persuade him'.

The prophet reported God agreed with this spirit, that this would succeed, so the spirit went and became a lying spirit in the mouths of the prophets.

Yet, God also had the entire lie told to the king.

And around these two, the king and this prophet, the other prophets were saying to go to battle, that he would succeed.

And the king went to battle, and he was killed.


As remarkable as this story is, many tend to blank it out or not notice it. God out thinks human beings. God is capable of operating on His own terms.


People often try and insist, "things are this way", or "the rules are this way", but God does as He pleases, and what He does is always just and fair.


Let me point out something critical here: people who believe a lie will not be easily persuaded to believe the truth. People believe what they want to believe based on their own preferences. So, for them, there is no truth.

You can go to them and tell them the truth, but they will not believe it.

All they can literally understand and be willing to believe is a lie.

Put another way: you have to go down to the death hole they find themselves in, in order to talk to them. You have to talk to them using their own language. Only from there can you gain rapport, and only from there can you lead them out of the darkness they are in.



If you go and talk to an insane person who believes they are from Mars, you have to talk in their insane, deluded language to reach them.

While this may seem very far from these pundits and scientists, consider: consider the cargo cults, the primitives found in far outlaying islands and how obscure and strange they are. Consider North Koreans and how one might try and break through to them.

Then consider how earth is - in comparison - to Heaven... as far away and as primitive, and even far moreso.


If you try and talk to such primitives you will not always use their language, their concepts, their understandings to get through to them. But largely, at first, you have to. They know nothing else. They simply do not have the language for it. And their morality is dark. They may call this or that "wrong", which is right... and that or this "right", which is wrong. They are deeply backwards, savage.

So much so, likewise, are people of earth compared to Heaven.


These are, however, hard concepts to wrap one's mind around. It requires a deliberate and deep shift of perception.


I am not sure if it is possible without hard evidence, of just how strange and distant Heaven is to earth. It is as a truly deep abstract problem to solve for a person without such tangible realities to contrast against.

 

[shernren]

Heaven is indeed strange and distant from Earth.

The question of what physical conditions and histories it takes for a wide variety of rocks, from Earth or from space, to have particular isotopic ratios - now that is not quite as strange and distant, however. What has Heaven to do with that?