The Miracle of Water.

[Unveiled Artist]

@Hockeycowboy thank you for addressing my questions, by the way. I hate floaters.

 

[nPeace]

I understand your point. But people can actually see my copyright. They don't have to assume. God concept is very vague. Tell me. How do you see god in the making of the planet without knowing the bible? When you see art and you don't know the concept of creation, what more is there to appreciate what you see without needing an artist to appreciate it? Can you fine god and show god without scripture...something that's not vague?

I like that.
Here's why.
Take away your signature, and your copyright.
Get the picture?

The scriptures are God's signature and copyright.
If we didn't have the scriptures, we could only marvel at the wonders of creation, but we would have no idea what brilliant artist, and compassionate loving father was responsible for all of it.

Enter the Bible... God's signature and copyright.
In it, we learn about the person responsible for nature's great masterpiece.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I like that.
Here's why.
Take away your signature, and your copyright.
Get the picture?

The scriptures are God's signature and copyright.
If we didn't have the scriptures, we could only marvel at the wonders of creation, but we would have no idea what brilliant artist, and compassionate loving father was responsible for all of it.

Enter the Bible... God's signature and copyright.
In it, we learn about the person responsible for nature's great masterpiece.

I can see that. But not all people need a copyright to apreciate and understand art. It speaks for itself. Unless, maybe, youre an art student, but there isnt really a text to fall back on in appreciating art. I mean, some many find signatures good especially when buying million dollar canvases, but, in general, the scripture IS the art not based on it.

But can you see god in creation without his signature?

I mean, when I look at art, I cant see De Vinci in his painting. Im not an art student and dont know art that intimately, but I dont care. Its not about the artist himself, but how his expression is painted into the art.

The key is: I dont need to prove it. I dont need scripture nor historical channels. I dont need to debate about it. It just is.

If youre not into art, you wont be able to see it and thats okay. You arent ignorant, in denial, or anything like that. My best friend doesnt like art and music (!!!) but she is still my friend. I dont tolerate her or say she is in denial. Thats her and this is me.

But when I look at the ocean, is there a way to find god's signature without referring to scripture?

I mean, I cant find Vinci signature in his art unless I know it beforehand. It doesnt matter either way

Why does it matter to christians?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Either you have faith in a God by looking at all the other points of evidence, or you believe that the universe just suddenly appeared out of nothing.

There are other possibilities. I think that the most likely scenario is that our universe was spawned by an eternal multiverse.

Faith isn't an option for the rational skeptic. Why? Faith clearly cannot be a path to knowledge if any idea and its polar opposite can both be assumed to be true by faith, when clearly one or both are wrong. A better method for determining what is true about reality is to examine it (empiricism). That's how we learned about the amazing properties of water, not by faith.

The thing I don’t get is how something can come out of nothing.

The multiverse hypothesis circumvents that issue by saying that our universe came from a timeless and eternal multiverse, not out of nothing.

It seems to me that because the universe exists, that either it or something else that served as its source has always existed or came into being from nothing. These are both counterintuitive ideas - time stretching infinitely into the past or something bootstrapping itself into existence from nothing. Unless I've overlooked a third possibility, it seems that we are forced to accept that something that seems impossible is the case.

When does the bible ever disagree with science?

The Bible got almost none of it right. Make a list of features of the genesis creation account, and compare and contrast that with an analogous list of the features of the standard model of Big Bang cosmology, and you'll find striking differences that cannot be reconciled.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

“He stretches out the northern sky over empty space, suspending the earth upon nothing.” - Job 26:7

At this time, people thought that the Earth was atop four elephant elephants on a turtle on a etc... The bible, although apparently contradicting ‘science’, was eventually proved correct.

Or, as the Bible also says, they thought that the earth was flat, immobile, set on four pillars, and encased in a perforated dome that contained the stars and through which the waters above the sky fell as rain.

Incidentally, when you say that something in the Bible was eventually proved correct, you're tacitly elevating science to the role of arbiter of truth. Until science demonstrates that something is the case, scripture on the same topic remains an unsupported claim, much of which has already been contradicted

“There is One who dwells above the circle of the earth.” Isaiah 40:22

Everyone thought that the Earth was flat, and some believed that if you walked too far you would fall off the edge.

How does that not make the earth flat? Circles are flat. The earth is a sphere (or oblate spheroid if you prefer).

I find there is No organization without intelligence.

Watch a collection of planetesimals of assorted sizes and trajectories self-organize into a regularly rotating and orbiting sphere and act in unison. Or watch a hurricane self-organize into a structure of wind and water that can can channel energy and migrate for days. No intelligence is involved in the organizing of either of these structures.

just shows as numbers go on endlessly, so can God be from everlasting

If something can have existed eternally into the past, then we don't really need that something to be a god.

has there ever been any mindless, natural-force accident, which we know about (like a certain tree falling, or Hurricane Iniki, etc) that produced some functional feature?

That's what evolution does. Blindly and without intelligent input, it creates increasingly complex functional systems.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

God stepped back from his creation to show them what happens when they choose independence rather than obedience.

Independence worked well for me. I left Christianity some 35 years ago, choosing autonomy over submission to ancient ideas that simply weren't working for me. I've had a good life since, which, if there is a divine presence with an interest in my life, has blessed me for my choice.

If you are going to make God out to be some kind of second rate failure, then why bother with him at all?

Good point. The world makes much more sense without gods. One benefit of atheism is that when a cute little doe-eyed girl dies of leukemia sometime later today (and one will somewhere), you have the comfort of knowing that it was just rotten luck, and not something caused by or allowed to happen by an unseen agent with the power to prevent or cure the leukemia, but not the will.

Sentient life is the only kind of life that Bible readers would have understood until they advanced in knowledge of science.

I doubt that. They could easily understand that plant, which are not sentient, are alive. And the idea of invisible microscopic life is easy to understand even if difficult to believe without microscopes to demonstrate their growth, movement, and reproduction.

abiogenesis is no closer to being proven than it was when it was first suggested as a way to get rid of an Intelligent Creator.

Abiogenesis research continues to plod along in its effort to complete the chain from small organic molecules to cellular life. Presently, that chain is a series of sub-chains that don't yet connect to one another, but those gaps are closing at a decent pace.

And we don't need to get rid any intelligent creator. None exist in science, and none are needed. Scientific theories work well without gods, and injecting them into the science gives it no more explanatory or predictive power, and leads to no new practical applications.

I think people are fed up with taking pills that do nothing but treat symptoms and cost a fortune.

I take a variety of pills for blood pressure and cholesterol, neither of which creates symptoms, and both of which are normal with treatment. The numbers of people dropping dead in their late fifties from heart attacks and strokes, or walking around with swollen feet and ankles from heart failure, or blind from diabetes, has been sharply reduced from my grandfather's day, a man I never met because of his fatal heart attack at age 58.

All of my medications are available as generics, and they are quite affordable. I just paid $15 for 200 days worth of one of the blood pressure pills. I bought over a year's worth of the cholesterol medicine for about $35. These medicines will likely extend my life twenty years.

It's fine that you choose not to participate in those breakthroughs, although is suspect that if you become ill, you will be seeking professional medical care.

 

[nPeace]

I can see that. But not all people need a copyright to apreciate and understand art. It speaks for itself. Unless, maybe, youre an art student, but there isnt really a text to fall back on in appreciating art. I mean, some many find signatures good especially when buying million dollar canvases, but, in general, the scripture IS the art not based on it.

But can you see god in creation without his signature?

I mean, when I look at art, I cant see De Vinci in his painting. Im not an art student and dont know art that intimately, but I dont care. Its not about the artist himself, but how his expression is painted into the art.

The key is: I dont need to prove it. I dont need scripture nor historical channels. I dont need to debate about it. It just is.

If youre not into art, you wont be able to see it and thats okay. You arent ignorant, in denial, or anything like that. My best friend doesnt like art and music (!!!) but she is still my friend. I dont tolerate her or say she is in denial. Thats her and this is me.

But when I look at the ocean, is there a way to find god's signature without referring to scripture?

I mean, I cant find Vinci signature in his art unless I know it beforehand. It doesnt matter either way

Why does it matter to christians?

I don't think you got the picture.
I am not saying that

people need a copyright to apreciate and understand art

I am saying that people get to know who did the art.
They can appreciate the art without knowing the art, but once they get know the artist, they appreciate the artist.

Did I miss your point?
Were you not saying that people don't have to assume who the artist is, because they see the copyright?
All I am saying is that when we see the art of nature, we can assume its designer, but we don't have to assume, because the artist has placed placed his copyright on it - the scriptures.
Hope you understand.

One point though... How does a person understand art from a copyright? They can't.
They can try to understand the art by examining it, but they can only assume they understand the art.
The only way they can truly understand the art - that is, what the art is all about; why the art was done; etc. is if the artist explains - because he did it.
Otherwise, those observers are merely guessing.
Am I right?

 

[nPeace]

There are other possibilities. I think that the most likely scenario is that our universe was spawned by an eternal multiverse.

Faith.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Indeed, but without water there would be no plants and hence no flow on effect vital to life. Where does oxygen and CO2 come from?

The properties of water are unique.

The point is obviously debatable. You die without water in a few days. You die without oxygen in a matter of minutes.

 

[BilliardsBall]

We're not scoffers at God. We're scoffers at Creationism, which is a pseudoscience created by under-educated men afraid of knowledge which challenges their beliefs which they are unwilling to change. Nothing more than that.

I can speak for myself, I'm open to science claims, be they young or old Earth, macroevolution or rapid evolution, etc.

I also know the Word of God is truth. I question how both Creationists and others interpret both the Bible and the data from science.

 

[nPeace]

Independence worked well for me. I left Christianity some 35 years ago, choosing autonomy over submission to ancient ideas that simply weren't working for me. I've had a good life since, which, if there is a divine presence with an interest in my life, has blessed me for my choice.

You are seeing the generosity of God.
Matthew 5:45 . . .he makes his sun rise on both the wicked and the good and makes it rain on both the righteous and the unrighteous.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I am saying that people get to know who did the art.
They can appreciate the art without knowing the art, but once they get know the artist, they appreciate the artist.

How does the art itself tell you about the artist? (Or that there is one?) Is it a feeling or intuition?

Did I miss your point?

Were you not saying that people don't have to assume who the artist is, because they see the copyright?

All I am saying is that when we see the art of nature, we can assume its designer, but we don't have to assume, because the artist has placed placed his copyright on it - the scriptures.
Hope you understand.

No. (Not home so I can't double check). I was wondering if it's intuition that you know there is an artist based on what you see? Do you assume (intuition better word?) There is one because of your appreciation?

I'm saying there isn't a need to know if there is an artist to appreciate the art. The key is that deniers are supposed to recognize there is an artist rather than stopping at the art.

I was asking without the scriptures, can the art speak for itself? (Cause not all have scriptures, abrahamic at that, yet are told without it they can't fully and correctly appreciate the art in the Same intensity as the other)

One point though... How does a person understand art from a copyright? They can't.

If they are a set student, they'd probably look more into it. Some know the artist just by paint shading and technique.

They can try to understand the art by examining it, but they can only assume they understand the art.
The only way they can truly understand the art - that is, what the art is all about; why the art was done; etc. is if the artist explains - because he did it.
Otherwise, those observers are merely guessing.
Am I right?

From a non artist view, I suppose. If you mean academics, no. But I assume, at least for me, it's a religious feeling. Even with Waldo Emerson quotes. Weird I can tell it's him by How he writes without knowing who he is.

But, I don't see that connection with nature. Nature isn't bound by our perspective of what is god, origin, etc. It just is. We put ideas and stories to understand it. It's interesting I can talk to three people of seperate religions, say I did Hindu, and the same context and even language is used to explain god's interaction with you guys.

But the difference is we Are the art. But in my views, its not necessary to have an artist. Some artist are more me-oriented. Really depends.

 

[nPeace]

How does the art itself tell you about the artist? (Or that there is one?) Is it a feeling or intuition?

First, can I suggest we take our minds off the god issue, and just focus on a discussion on art for now.

If I saw an art piece - no matter what art style is used, I can assume that I know something about the artist.
By studying the art piece, there are certain details that can portray the artist's feeling, interests, etc.

Can I tell that the art piece was done by someone, and therefore there is an artist?

Throw away the ladder, and take the girl.
I have a few options.
1. It's an illusion. It's not really there. Or I am dreaming.
2. It put itself there - maybe the colors came together out of nowhere, or the paint or whatever made those pigments did a crazy dance, and Viola!
3. A pretty girl - or someone - was on a ladder - or something - moments before I arrived, and she - or they -did her - or their - stuff. Oh... not magic. She used her hands.

I pick number 3. What about you?

No. (Not home so I can't double check). I was wondering if it's intuition that you know there is an artist based on what you see? Do you assume (intuition better word?) There is one because of your appreciation?

I'm saying there isn't a need to know if there is an artist to appreciate the art. The key is that deniers are supposed to recognize there is an artist rather than stopping at the art.

I was asking without the scriptures, can the art speak for itself? (Cause not all have scriptures, abrahamic at that, yet are told without it they can't fully and correctly appreciate the art in the Same intensity as the other)

I agreed that one can appreciate art even though the artist is not around, but I have not stopped at just the art... you see. I may admire the art so much that my mind goes to the artist.
For now we are not on god yet. After this post, we will apply it to god.
This is how some person who admire art think.
1. Wow! This artist is so good! How did they...? I wonder what...? Who did this? I really would like to meet him/her/it. This is amazing!
I'm talking about a good piece of art here, okay.

Has this been your experience?

If they are a set student, they'd probably look more into it. Some know the artist just by paint shading and technique.

You can't know an artist by their technique, unless first you know the artist. That means you must have met the artist, and become familiar with their signature - that is their techniques, level of skill, preferred medium, etc
Do you agree?

From a non artist view, I suppose. If you mean academics, no. But I assume, at least for me, it's a religious feeling. Even with Waldo Emerson quotes. Weird I can tell it's him by How he writes without knowing who he is.

But, I don't see that connection with nature. Nature isn't bound by our perspective of what is god, origin, etc. It just is. We put ideas and stories to understand it. It's interesting I can talk to three people of seperate religions, say I did Hindu, and the same context and even language is used to explain god's interaction with you guys.

But the difference is we Are the art. But in my views, its not necessary to have an artist. Some artist are more me-oriented. Really depends.

We'll come back to the god topic shortly.

 

[Windwalker]

I can speak for myself, I'm open to science claims, be they young or old Earth, macroevolution or rapid evolution, etc.

Young earth is not a science claim. It's a religious claim that lacks any science supporting it. What you mean to say is, you are open to religious claims regarding science matters, over science's claims regarding science matters? Is that an accurate assessment of your position?

I also know the Word of God is truth. I question how both Creationists and others interpret both the Bible and the data from science.

You certainly can question how people read the Bible. But are you qualified to question how science interprets the data from science? Are you qualified to offer other scientific explanations? Do you think that science is a matter of opinion, and nothing more? Do you believe that Jane in the checkout lane of the Kwiki Mart can weigh in with her opinions about Black Holes, equally to that of the late Stephen Hawking?

 

[Windwalker]

Nice, exactly what I was about to reply to @Windwalker

Ok, but do you believe that matter is eternally existent then, that God just took the bits that some other Creator created and fashioned them into you and me? Where did that matter come from? How did it come to exist? Out of nothing?

What I don’t have is scientific proof that either God doesn’t exist

Of course not. That is not a matter for scientific investigation.

or that such things as evolution or the universe coming about simultaneously without a divine being creating it being true.

Two different things here. Regarding Evolution, we do have evidence how it happens. It happens every single moment of every single day. God is not in there tinkering around with all the bits, moving this gene here, arranging that bit of DNA there, bringing that cute girl into your life, and so on and so forth.

What you could argue for is that the system of evolution, the process of evolution, was created by God, and I have no problem with that. But what science sees, is the process and how it works all on its own, like studying how a tornado is formed. There is not god making tornados. So science can, and does have plenty to say about that, and it is not inaccurate.

Science should not weigh in on the question of God. But it should, and can, and does weigh in on Evolution. And they are correct about how it works, like it or not. If you don't like it, then I'd suggest you examine your faith why it cannot accommodate it. Other Christians have no problem with it, while fully embracing the reality of God. Why can't you? What's the difference between them, and you?

In my experience, the bible is highly scientifically accurate. Although it is not a science text-book, whenever it touches on science it has been proved correct, and so it should be, even when popular opinion was very different.

This is completely false, and what you think you are seeing is really more a matter of taking obscure passages and reading them into a modern understanding. The Muslims do this little parlor trick too with the Koran. Go read some of the "predictions" of Muhammad the believers in him come up with. It is exactly, 100% the same thing you are doing is seeing "science" in the Bible.

When does the bible ever disagree with science?

Oh my goodness. There are websites devoted to this. I need not elaborate much. World-wide flood? That's one.

“He stretches out the northern sky over empty space, suspending the earth upon nothing.” - Job 26:7

Technically, it is "suspended" on something, indeed. Gravity, is something. Centrifugal force is something. Would you ever claim when you throw a ball up into the air that it's up there with no forces acting upon it, that is just hanging there independently?

At this time, people thought that the Earth was atop four elephant elephants on a turtle on a etc...
The bible, although apparently contradicting ‘science’, was eventually proved correct. People thought ‘how can the Earth simply hang upon nothing?! That’s crazy!’

How do you handle it when the Muslims do this same thing with the Koran? Are they wrong, but you are right? If they are right too, then do you believe the Koran is a book of magical science knowledge, like the Bible is?

“There is One who dwells above the circle of the earth.” Isaiah 40:22

Everyone thought that the Earth was flat, and some believed that if you walked too far you would fall off the edge.

False. Not everyone did believe the earth was flat. Feast your eyes on this bit of knowledge: Myth of the flat Earth - Wikipedia The ancient Greeks certainly knew the earth was spherical.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

God is very important in these examples. An artist to her favorite art to me is god to his favorite creation to you. Both have the same concepts. l'll take out the word god.

If I saw an art piece - no matter what art style is used, I can assume that I know something about the artist.

By studying the art piece, there are certain details that can portray the artist's feeling, interests, etc.

Can I tell that the art piece was done by someone, and therefore there is an artist?

Yes. But, remember, if we arent using this as an analogy, this question is a given yes but doesnt mean anything beyond the answer. What connection are you making if not explaining how you view god to his art?

Throw away the ladder, and take the girl.
I have a few options.
1. It's an illusion. It's not really there. Or I am dreaming.
2. It put itself there - maybe the colors came together out of nowhere, or the paint or whatever made those pigments did a crazy dance, and Viola!
3. A pretty girl - or someone - was on a ladder - or something - moments before I arrived, and she - or they -did her - or their - stuff. Oh... not magic. She used her hands.

I pick number 3. What about you?

This goes with the god-association above. Unles you use god, the questions are isolated.

My focus isnt on the artist, though. I dont really look into an artist life because of her art. I just know there is an artist (as per our human logic), and that knowledge, although logical, doesnt have much affect on me as the actual art does.

For example, when I write poetry and people it they think I am talking about myself. Most of the time I am not. The only few things they can pick up from me is the pattern in most my poems, though Im changing up recently but weirdly natural turn. They may assume its about me because I write about specific topics all the time.

What I like is they can see the nature of the poem as a reflection of their own self. For example, I let my therapist read a religious poem. Her mind went directly to god even though thats not the intent. But, I was glad because in my art, people can see different parts of themselves thats beyond one artist work. Its not monotheist-not about myself-but pantheist-about all as all and in all. A reflection of life.

-

Logically, it would be three. Though, like the first part of the post, if its not an analogy, what are you saying?

For now we are not on god yet. After this post, we will apply it to god.
This is how some person who admire art think.
1. Wow! This artist is so good! How did they...? I wonder what...? Who did this? I really would like to meet him/her/it. This is amazing!
I'm talking about a good piece of art here, okay.

Do you get that as an intuition? Gut feeling?

Above, I said I dont get that. To me, is the art itself. I dont have an "I need to meet the artist" mentality. We have book festivals here all the time with varous authors coming to sign books. I dont have that sign-my-book point of view. Its highly prized all over the world from british queens and world politics, media star struck people, kissing popes, laying face down bowing to jesus, and so forth. Even meditating in front a Buddhist Statue bothers me.

Since we added god to the picture now, its ideal to say thank you to the artist. When you dont see the art as a reflection of the artist but a reflection of all potraded in the art, there is no separation between the artist and art and life.

I get what you are saying on earth, but on earth, we can actually talk to the artist and know his signature without using faith to put two and two. God doesnt work that way. You would have to explain how the art actually defines gods existence first and then talk about how much you love the art in reflection of the artist.

In other words: we need to know which artist you are speaking of when you speak of her art. We cant know just by looking at it since the appreciation is yours not universal. Not all people like art.

Has this been your experience?

The picture, yes. I go walking each morning and taken in the scenary apart from my immediate environment. Virginia has alot of mountains. I dont think of an creator when I see them though.

You can't know an artist by their technique, unless first you know the artist. That means you must have met the artist, and become familiar with their signature - that is their techniques, level of skill, preferred medium, etc Do you agree?

True.

To those who do have a connection to "there has to be an artist I must meet because I like this creation", yes. Probably most religious think this way.

What about appreciating the art as art?

I mean, thats probably how the artist wants you to appreciate his work rather than himself. He is the art, if you like. If the artist were alive, then yeah, I can see it. In god comparision, how do you say thank you to god if god is not his art?

What exactly are you thanking?

I get what you are saying in general. You have the art, so logicaly there is an artist. Why not thank the artist.

If you like my art, your gratitude to me is how you see my art within yourself-so its your art not mine. I just had the tools.

Or a step further, why separate the artist from the art and yourself?

I feel you can learn more about the artist by how the art affects you. Then, as you know more about the art, you see its not special in regards to putting the artist on a pedalstool. You see it as yourself as if you are the artist.

At least thats how I see paintings and read poetry. Its a reflection of all.

 

[Riders]

It is soothing, isn't it?!!

When my wife and I toured Hawaii, one place we visited was Laupahoehoe State Park. Awesome waves!

Oh man if I visited Hawaii I don't think Id ever leave!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Oh man if I visited Hawaii I don't think Id ever leave!

I know.....we didn't want to leave at all!

We went to the Big Island and Kauai (and Oahu, of course....the plane landed in Honolulu).

I would encourage everyone to at least visit it (just stay away from Kilauea right now, lol). You can stay in a clean hotel, on the Big Island, for as little as $70 / night!

It's the Flight there that's expensive.

Take care.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

@Hockeycowboy thank you for addressing my questions, by the way. I hate floaters.

You're welcome.

I wish you the best!

 

[ecco]

And yet, somehow you believe that an omnipotent, omniscient god has always existed. A god that didn't come out of nothing because it always existed.

You never question that, do you.

I am wondering if you question that you can count numbers everlastingly both forwards and backwards forever and ever. To me that indicates there is No end to counting in both directions.
So, to me to say God is from everlasting just shows as numbers go on endlessly, so can God be from everlasting.

There is Nothing before Creator ( Revelation 4:11)
There is No creator who created the Creator.
Creator is always the start or beginning of something.
So, the God of the Bible is Not only God but The Creator.
The Creator who started first the invisible realm and expanded His creation to include the now visible or material realm.

As I said, you don't question it - you just rationalize it.

Maybe you can rationalize why God waited for all of eternity before He created Man. Perhaps He was thinking about a good way to do it so He wouldn't have to kill everyone and start over.

Oh, wait. That can't be right.