Just a question...

hey, jar, since I'm new to this forum, would you please either give a brief description of your own (nonCreationist?) model or else cite some previous post that might explain it? I'm curious to know what you believe.A few years ago I had an experience (or more accurately a series of experiences) that convinced me nearly 100% that "God" really exists, and, more to the point, that he is truly a personal God. After many years of doubt, faith came to me suddenly and unexpectedly in this way. As a logical extension of my experience (which I believe supports the God model of the Bible), I believe that this same God did indeed create the universe and all that is in it. Sorry, I can't present a model of how life was formed, or much of anything else concerning creation, but I'll be taking it on faith that God must have done it.I'm past doubting, jar, thanks be to God, but I know many others are not (yet) so blessed. I wish God's greatest blessings on these in the quest for more knowledge of the truth.Edited by itrownot, : typo for clarity

jar, when i said i was "past doubting", it was within the context of having described to you my lifelong doubts concerning the existence of a "God". IOW, I meant that i was "past doubting" the existence of "God", since I believe that God graciously manifested himself to me after so many years of doubt on my part. I am NOT "past doubting" any given dogma concerning "God" (or anything else for that matter), as your reply suggests; on the contrary, all dogma is questionable, IMO, and ought to be examined very closely before swallowing it down. It's not "sad and pitiful" for me to believe in "God" on the basis of my own experience, provided that that experience offers me enough clear and convincing "real" evidence...on the contrary, it's rather "sad and pitiful" if such convincing "real" evidence were ever to be simply ignored, flatly rejected, or else suppressed due to one's own "sad and pitiful" predilections in life. For me it was a matter of choice, and I took the step of faith simply because it made logical sense for me to do so, in my judgment. I cannot imagine ever regretting my decision, and I wish the same surety for others.BTW, science is not a model, but a field of systematic study, of course. I don't claim to have a "creationist" model, but surely you do have a real "evolutionist" model that you can cite in so many words? Is there only one monolithic "evolutionist" model to which you may be referring, albeit indirectly, or are there many? I don't know, honestly--I was just curious to hear how life may have begun, for example, according to the "evolutionist" model.

nator, please refer to my reply to jar (Message 65) for my clarifying remarks. It's easy to take my comments out of context and distort them, rather than simply asking me for clarification, but that's your choice, isn't it? Yes, I am "past learning" about the existence of God in that I have sufficient empirical evidence of my own to satisfy all previous doubt, and I have now put that question aside. Thanks for caring though.

jar, I'm curious--"Too bad, pitiful" because I believe in a God, based upon empirical evidence that you may doubt, or just "Too bad, pitiful" because I believe in a God? Which is it? Or are you only trying to provoke me somehow?

Dr A, science is a field of inquiry, not a model. You know that, but it's still a dodge of the question. What is your model explaining the appearance of life on planet Earth? Sure "science" is not your answer!If jar claims to be a theist, I have no problem with it, but that is quite irrelevant. I never accused him of being otherwise, and even theists are entitled to hold to a few strange ideas, in my opinion. More power to him.If you had read my posts more thoughtfully, I think you may see that I'm not a proponent of any "creationist" model, by my own admission. I too believe in a real world.

Gee, jar, I'm sad, too! If only you would read my posts more carefully, you would know that I said that I was nearly 100% convinced of the existence of God, NOT 100%! Also, I said I was "past doubt" because I don't intend to keep revisiting that particular question ad nauseum after so many years of doubting. "Beyond any doubt" is your own characterization of what I actually said.

nator, I'm not putting my empirical evidence up for peer review or something--I don't really expect to convince anyone but myself on this question. If my judgment is a deficient measure of things, well then I guess I'll have to live with the consequences of believing in God, for pete's sake. If you like, we can call my evidence subjective, but I would have thought that much was quite obvious to all. Webster says 'empirical' means "relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory." And I'm fine with that. The operative word there is "often", and in my judgment, I have exercised due regard for system and theory.

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?

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

omg, noseyned, you apparently missed the definition of "empirical" I listed in Message 74, so i'll repeat that for you right here, exactly the way I listed it the first time: Webster says 'empirical' means "relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory." Huummm..."often without due regard for system and theory"...so maybe old Itrownot DOES know a thing or two of what 'empirical' means...actually maybe he's quite familiar with that particular term (or "big word" as you describe it), since he uses it regularly in the practice of his own profession. If you want to see "don't know", wake up and look in the mirror.BTW, you also missed the point that I'm not a proponent of creationism, so, again, you need to loosen up abit, I think.On the other hand, I must have missed the big sign over the Coffee House door that says "Dante's Inferno"...you know, "all who enter in, abandon ye all hope"...LOL. Loosen up, nosey, life is short, try to enjoy it (oh, let me guess--the nasty creationists won't let you, 'cause they're so twisted & evil)