Just a question...

As expected, you don't actually have any such evidence. And now, when called on it, you play a game to cover up your first misstatement.Pretty common that is.

If your doubts get repetitious, you're doing it wrong. There's an endless array of variety for doubt. Let's see if we can get that down to 65% or so.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I'm sorry but did you not say: Now you say: LOLI am not sure how else to take those statement other than as saying you now say you believe in God "beyond any doubt."

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I'm still pleading for a Biblical Creationist model for what is seen, first for a Young Earth Explanation for sand and then, once we can examine that, perhaps move on to something more complex.So far NO "Creo" has ever been able to present a model for anything that is seen, not one single thing.If "Creationism" ever hopes to be anything more than just a joke, and not a very original joke at that, they are going to have to stop simply claiming "Creation Science" and actually do some. I have some hope that someday there will actually be a Type 2b Creationist, but so far not one has ever appeared.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Thank you for your enthusiasm, iceage. You're at least eager to learn the details, and I certainly understand and appreciate your skepticism. I will try to honor your request as best I can (despite the impossibility of it).If I told you that God came out of the clouds on a fiery chariot, and I saw him, so I know he exists, that would be purely farcical, and wholly deserving of ridicule. On the other hand, if I told you that God had asked me a certain distinct series of personal preferences under a strictly limited set of conditions, and then had proceeded to replay my exact answers, one after the other, in perfect order, within hours, so as to confirm himself to me as the only possible inquisitor, would this not take on the semblance of a real experiment? Of course it would. For example, science has used similar methods of experiment, I think, in its investigation of ESP, using various 'special cards' in order to "test" for the phenomenon. Now, the method used is an acceptable one, but the analysis of the results are more problematic, I think. IOW, what will be the measure of "success"?Similarly, if "God" asks me ten preferences (as described above) and then "shows them back to me," can I then declare a "success" in experiencing God? Some might say 'yes' and others 'no'. (In either event, however, the "data" is empirical, isn't it?) The problem is, "I" am the one, the only one, receiving the "data" and the "experiment" itself was wholly unexpected. Now, if, for example, I get 40 "hits" in a row, I myself will most definitely declare a "success", but, since I have not set up the experiment scientifically anyway, the raw "data" is useless to anyone but me (and even for me it is 'unscientific'). Yet "I" would be wholly convinced of the existence of God because I know that the "experiment" ('unscientific' as it was) was a wild success by anyone's measure.This is the problem with my empirical evidence: it is sufficient to satisfy a declaration of "success" for me, but not for anyone else, I'm afraid. To go into the actual specifics would only serve to point this out, at best. (There are many other "specifics", but the point is the same).Sorry, iceage, I wish I could do better at this. I know you are disappointed with my admittedly poor analysis, but I have always acknowledged the problem of translating my experience to others, particularly in writing, and I have pretty much avoided talking about it to anyone but the closest of friends.BTW, I know it is of little consolation, but I completely agree with you concerning the Strobel books and the McDowell arguments...they did absolutely nothing for me, either.

excuse me, subbie, but maybe you can back up that assertion. Where have I been told that the ToE does not encompass how life began?

Message 66 for one place.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Message 30 in this thread.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

You know, you can buy second-hand biology textbooks quite cheap.

You know, itrownot, when someone becomes convinced of something they cannot prove to anyone else, we usually call it "delusion." Sometimes, if it's bad enough, we call it "schizophrenia."If you had a certain set of events happen to you that convinced you of something, but you cannot reproduce the results under the same conditions, it is likely that those events were coincidental. Holding a belief steadfastly despite being unable to prove it to others is nearly the definition of delusion. It's the same reason scientists don't accept experimental results until the results have been duplicated by a 3rd party.If you hear voices in your head claiming to be God...well...that would require professional help.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

subbie, I came into this thread at Message 59 with a simple question I asked of jar. I only wanted him to describe his model to me, or to cite a previous posting that might help me to understand his position. Sorry I asked.Your comment to DiscipleFire was Message 30, so go figure. Yeah, maybe I could've read it, and maybe I missed it, too, but, hey, maybe you've missed some other post to somebody else yourself at one time or another. Did somebody jump down your neck with two feet for it?For that matter, I'm sorry to have mentioned my personal "empirical" evidence for a God, too, and why I happen to believe in a personal God. I merely wanted to suggest to jar that faith isn't always so straight-line predictable. Well, it's not all that interesting, obviously, so forget about it.

Rahvin, call it whatever you will, it doesn't matter. I'm confident in the knowledge that I'm quite sane, thank you. I've only tried to accommodate someone's request for what I described as personal "empirical" evidence for God that I conceded from the outset to be only anecdotal and unscientific.On the other hand, the Red Sox just won the pennant, so overall I'm pleased with the results of my evening. Thank you for your participation and good night.Oh, PS, rahvin--the voices in my head are yelling, "The Red Sox have won the Pennant!...the Red Sox have won the Pennant!" Edited by itrownot, : Added PS

Dr. A, I'm guessing that missing the point is something you do well. Welcome to the pile-on, though--good night and may God bless.

nosey ned, I'm going to miss you most of all, I think. You seem to have missed my scarcasm completely. Most of you people need to loosen up a bit, i trow.

ringo, yours was the most thoughtful reply of the evening, and perhaps the kindest. I thank you also for the good-natured humor, but 65%? I trow not.BTW, i had heard that the "Coffee House" was a place to kick back a bit. guess i wuz wrong about that. see ya, ringo.Oh, PS--I do hope jar gets his creation model someday...really. Edited by itrownot, : PS added