Please validate your belief in your God

[WayneHarropson]

To paraphrase the Python's Cheese Shop :
   Atheists:  Wayne, is there, in fact, any chance of you changing your views at all?
   Wayne:   No, not in the slightest.

   Wayne:   Atheists, is there, in fact, any chance of you all adapting my views?
   Atheists:  No, not in the slightest.
John Cleese:  Well, I'm sorry, but I'm afraid we are going to have to shoot this thread.

You won't be the first one to suggest such a thing. 
There are one's here that want to keep a converstion going with me and have no interest in reading my supporting articles, dismissing the thought of reading them out of hand.  That would be an admission that no amont of new information would ever change their minds, and to protect themselves from being threatened buy it, avoid it altogether.

Some of them are short enough to paste here so I'll do that now and see if some who couldn't open the links might have some comments about them.

Thanks Snozzola.


Montclair
In the early 70s I was driving 60 Mercury Montclair with a 430 cubic inch engine. It was a well preserved “grandma” car I bought from a retired couple for $200. One night on a dark desolate highway rabbits were getting crunched sometimes flopping around the wheel-wells as I barreled along at 90 miles an hour. I was tired, it was dark, I was driving entirely too fast, but the adrenalin from the stimulation of the anticipated hits and near misses of the countless rabbits kept me from nodding off.

I kept this pace up until suddenly all the lights on the car went completely out.

So there I was, going 90 miles an hour in the pitch dark. I couldn’t even see the dashboard let alone anything outside. I held the steering wheel straight and braced myself while kicking at the floor mounted high-beam switch, all the while pulling the light switch in and out on the dashboard. I had slowed to about 45 mph when the low beams finally came on.

That was the first warning.

I continued at about 50 mph until my pulse settled down. I then tried the high beams. They worked. I picked up my speed to 60, then 70 and after a while I was again traveling upwards of 85 and 90 mph. I continued again at these speeds for about 10 minutes when, again, everything went black.

That was the second warning.
 
This was not a straight road it curved and was hilly. With all the running lights there was no challenge negotiating at those speeds, but in the total darkness, there was nothing to do but brace, hit the brakes, and hold it straight.
 
Obviously the high beam circuit was overloading. So I drove with only the low beams, and for a while, exercised some common sense and kept my speed down.

My better sense left me once again. So with only low beams I picked up speed to 85 miles an hour with a dramatically shortened view. This was crazy, and I knew it. The excitement however was keeping me from falling asleep, and the rabbits that I would normally see afar off were only in my view for a split second before they were crunched.
 
The third and final warning rang out, but this time is wasn’t a short circuit. It was a shout inside my head:

“THAT’S ENOUGH!”
 
I didn’t just slow down, jammed on the brakes, slowing to about 45 mph, and while my foot was still firm against the brake pedal, a herd of cows came into view. My foot bore down tighter on the brake and though I was only going 45 when I first saw them, I very nearly had to lock up the brakes to avoid hitting the last one clearing the highway! I was not alone!

The spirit possessing Montclair was no Christine.
 
Wayne Harropson
 
PS
 Though I repaired the shorting wire, I thank God for the warning circuit.
Published at FORD here: http://social.ford.com/your-stories/cars/Montclair/my-montclair-was-no-christine/

[WayneHarropson]

Please let me revisit this question.

How do you know that your god is not the false one?

My earthquake vision had Pat Robertson in its fulfillment, so what do you think?

I was just listening to John MacArthur after the last remarks on this and he was saying that only God knows the future.  So a false god would not.  Which ever god it is that told me about an earthquake, a mass killing, a future president, (Barack is Idi Amin), specifically wants me to think he is the one associated with Pat Robertson, and he obviously knows the future so, I think I've either got the right one, or one that is tricking me into thinking he is the God of the bible.  I hope that helps.

[wheels5894]

There can be said to be correlation if.....
There can be said to be causation if.....
The difference between the two - which one applies in a particular case - can be determined by.....

I'll have to work on this later.  I didn't take the college courses to know exactly, that's why I asked for the tutorial.  I'm sorry if I frustrate you but this isn't an intellectual matchup.  And If I don't know an answer, it doesn't mean I'm dismissing it.

To understand this better, have a look here. It explains things quite neatly.

[nogodsforme]

Please let me revisit this question.

How do you know that your god is not the false one?

My earthquake vision had Pat Robertson in its fulfillment, so what do you think?

I was just listening to John MacArthur after the last remarks on this and he was saying that only God knows the future.  So a false god would not.  Which ever god it is that told me about an earthquake, a mass killing, a future president, (Barack is Idi Amin), specifically wants me to think he is the one associated with Pat Robertson, and he obviously knows the future so, I think I've either got the right one, or one that is tricking me into thinking he is the God of the bible.  I hope that helps.

I have heard many stories like yours from people all over the world. People from other religions, including Islam and Santeria say the exact same thing you do about visions, knowing the future, and so forth. They swear that their stories are true and interpret them as messages from their gods.

I still want to know how you are sure that their stories are false. It has to be more than how you feel about one event versus another. How are we to distinguish their stories from your stories, where all of you make connections between fairly normal, if uncommon life events and a god. What criteria or reasoning separates true supernatural events from false ones?

One example is that the African god Eshu is associated with the number 3, so when things happen involving that number, like triplets being born or three white birds flying by, people attibute the event to Eshu.[1]  How would you explain to someone who believed in the African dieties that triplets are not caused by Eshu?

1.	I assume that you do not believe that triplets are caused by Eshu, and understand that having three babies is uncommon but normal and not supernatural.

[WayneHarropson]

Regarding the Montclair anecdote, the fact that the lights went out at high speeds (as you said, 85-90 mph) and the fact that you had a defective circuit in no way suggests a supernatural occurrence.  The final one, the 'voice' shouting inside your head, also does not suggest supernatural or divine intervention.  It suggests that the part of your mind not caught up in the emotional excitement of driving your car at dangerously excessive speeds 'yelled' at you in order to snap you out of that fugue state you were in.  It also seems that your subconscious noted movement on the side of the road, thus why it happened when it did.

You actually pieced that together quite well.  If I didn't have such a plethora of incidences both lesser and greater than this one, and had it been the only one in my lifetime, i might have noted it as a one in a lifetime memory that defied my understanding and would have not bothered to tell people about it.  That is a big maybe. 
Problem is, even in that, something intelligent created me, and gave me something very hard to define, and that is this uncanny ability to as you said it:  "(my) subconscious noted movement on the side of the road."  Now you are hedging in your description and you know it because the side of the road at 90 MPH is kind of out there.  I know you are trying to separate yourself from an omniscient God, but I can't stretch the imagination as far as you can and still remain in the natural realm.

  If you believed in a different religion, you would have attributed it to the god of that religion.

Before my earthquake vision, that could have been a likelihood for your arguments sake.  At no time have I had Jesus Christ appear and say i am Jesus Christ, I am keeping you from harm.  Of course in my case He would have been wasting His time because I would have given him credit for it any way, and I always have.  That is a good argument for putting you kids in a Christian school if you can't believe enough to teach them yourselves.  A lot of people do that and I think God likes it.

But nowadays we know better.

Yes we absolutely do know more about this fabulous universe now than before, and the God that has it all in His control moment by moment wasn't worried when you misunderstood it nor is he particularly impressed that you understand it better now, his power and dominion remains the same, and the wise of us are smart enough to know that.

earthquakes come from tectonic movements,   plagues come from disease-bearing organisms.  None of them require a god to explain them.

  It would take God to know the second that a tectonic plate is to slip, now you do have to concede that don't you?

[WayneHarropson]

To understand this better, have a look here. It explains things quite neatly.

Thanks wheels
I called a scholar friend for a lifeline, maybe your reference will help.

[nogodsforme]

Actually we are getting closer to predicting events like earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. When scientists can tell us that a tectonic plate is about to slip, will you then decide that the scientists are gods?

So far, every time that scientists have explained something previously thought to be supernatural, religious people at first deny it, then just accept it, and incorporate meteorites or germ theory or dinosaur fossils or whatever into their reality. Even when they refuse to accept something as true, like evolution, they have no problem having it in their everyday lives-- getting flu shots, eating genetically modified corn, watching CSI shows where DNA matching solves the crime, etc.

They manage to keep the religious part of their brain compartmentalized and separate, and move on as if nothing had changed.

I predict that is what Wayne will do. Does that make me a god?

[WayneHarropson]

They swear that their stories are true and interpret them as messages from their gods.
I still want to know how you are sure that their stories are false.

My job here is to report that God has revealed his omnipresence, omnicience from my episodes.  If God is also active in a similar way to a non Christian they should come on here and do what I'm doing.  You give me the impression that your calling in life isnt to prove there is no God, but to make sure that the God of the bible and of christianity is excluded from contention.

Are you as an atheist here to pick sides between religions, or are you going to be consistent and dismiss them all.  I'm saying my proof says you are wrong to dismiss the God on the bible, let others make their own case.

How are we to distinguish their stories from your stories, where all of you make connections between fairly normal, if uncommon life events and a god. What criteria or reasoning separates true supernatural events from false ones?

You can ask those questions of yourself.  You have my true stories,  You have me here defending them.  If you cant explain it rationally then it is likely supernatural.  That was easy.  Mine are supernatural, they are the only one's I can defend for you.

[WayneHarropson]

I predict that is what Wayne will do. Does that make me a god?

My having a vision of an earthquake and it's timing and my word spoken "IMPACT" renders everything you have said just so much wistling past the graveyard, you know that don't you.

Don't worry, I understand, this isn't meant to go down easily.

[WayneHarropson]

Therefore, you are just making assumptions. There is not a single iota of truth in your claims, except that you probably wrote that 23 years ago (even that can be questioned, as it is not dated). We know not how much else you wrote 23 years ago.

I'm not a writer of quatrains if that's what you are thinking.  This was a remarkable experience and I wrote it at a time when I hadn't written much else.  I guess I should keep repeating that I'm not lying.  I have the original 1989 article typed on a typwriter, I didn't retype it. And I have repeated here that I had no idea it would be the parody it was, nor was it God's intention that I know.

Would you like to tell us about the other stories you have written that never came true?

  Even this one had no intent to become true from my account, God inspired me to write it full well knowing I didn't know its future relevence.

That baby boo boo is a classy support for your case.

[nogodsforme]

I predict that is what Wayne will do. Does that make me a god?

My having a vision of an earthquake and it's timing and my word spoken "IMPACT" renders everything you have said just so much wistling past the graveyard, you know that don't you.

Don't worry, I understand, this isn't meant to go down easily.

Thousands of people have visions of earthquakes, every day, all over the world. Hundreds of earthquakes happen every year--most too small for people to feel, luckily. It would be strange if someone somewhere did not have a vision of an earthquake that coincided with an actual earthquake! What would be the point of god giving you a random vision of an earthquake?

And what does the word "impact" have to do with an earthquake? It was not a meteor strike or a plane crash or god's might fist punching out President Obama. Yeah, during earthquakes things fall down and have impacts, but also fires erupt and gas mains rupture causing explosions. Why would god say "impact"? That would be like hearing "fire" right before a hurricane.

My point as an atheist is to treat all religions exactly equally. I subject every religious claim to the same level of respect and scrutiny, whether it is from a Christian Scientist, a Scientologist, a Santero or a Shinto. That is only fair. And as it turns out, none of them have any more factual evidence than any other. That is the one thing that they all have in common with you, Wayne.

Can you address my question about the god Eshu and triplets? How would you explain that Eshu, whose magic number is 3, does not cause triplets to be born?

[jaimehlers]

You actually pieced that together quite well.  If I didn't have such a plethora of incidences both lesser and greater than this one, and had it been the only one in my lifetime, i might have noted it as a one in a lifetime memory that defied my understanding and would have not bothered to tell people about it.  That is a big maybe.

Here's the thing.  You've already convinced yourself that what you believe is true, and you're not really willing to consider "what if I'm wrong?"  You said in a post just a bit ago that either you had the right (god) or one who was trying to trick you, but those aren't the only options here.

Problem is, even in that, something intelligent created me, and gave me something very hard to define, and that is this uncanny ability to as you said it:  "(my) subconscious noted movement on the side of the road."  Now you are hedging in your description and you know it because the side of the road at 90 MPH is kind of out there.

The senses pick up a lot of things that we don't consciously notice.  It isn't actually uncanny to have the subconscious pick up a flash of movement and alert you to it.  The problem here is that you're taking that and trying to fit it into the framework of what you already know and believe, and as a result, ending up with something that simply doesn't make sense to other people.

I know you are trying to separate yourself from an omniscient God, but I can't stretch the imagination as far as you can and still remain in the natural realm.

Please do not make assumptions that depend on your own particular belief system.  For one thing, it isn't about stretching the imagination, it's about not jumping to conclusions based on limited knowledge.  You've stated yourself that you aren't particularly knowledgeable about various things (for example, correlation and causation).  Given that, any conclusion you try to draw about it will be based on incomplete knowledge, at best, and that's a good way to make mistakes.

Before my earthquake vision, that could have been a likelihood for your arguments sake.  At no time have I had Jesus Christ appear and say i am Jesus Christ, I am keeping you from harm.  Of course in my case He would have been wasting His time because I would have given him credit for it any way, and I always have.  That is a good argument for putting you kids in a Christian school if you can't believe enough to teach them yourselves.  A lot of people do that and I think God likes it.

Let me rewrite this paragraph of yours slightly to make a point.

"Before my earthquake vision, that could have been a likelihood for your arguments sake.  At no time have I had Allah appear and say I am Allah, I am keeping you from harm.  Of course in my case He would have been wasting His time because I would have given Him credit for it anyway, and I always have.  That is a good argument for putting your kids in an Islamic school if you can't believe enough to teach them yourselves.  A lot of people do that and I think Allah likes it."

A lot of Muslims actually make an argument like this - that everyone is born Muslim and then gets 'converted' away from it, therefore they have the right and the obligation to make people revert to Islam.  I think that if someone tried to tell you that you shouldn't have a say in the school your children were taught in, and that they should be taught another religion, one you didn't believe in, whether you liked it or not, you would not take it well.  When you argue that other people should have to do something because you want them to, you undercut your position if someone else makes the same argument towards you.  So no, this doesn't work as an argument.

Yes we absolutely do know more about this fabulous universe now than before, and the God that has it all in His control moment by moment wasn't worried when you misunderstood it nor is he particularly impressed that you understand it better now, his power and dominion remains the same, and the wise of us are smart enough to know that.

You're making a typical mistake here.  You're presuming that people who agree with your beliefs are smart.  The converse is that people who disagree with them are stupid.  You may not have said that in so many words, but that is how it comes across.  One thing you really need to understand is that it is not a matter of intelligence, or lack thereof.  It is simply a matter of the belief one was raised in and what knowledge they have been exposed to.

Here's another thing.  If your god is as real as you say, why then are the things he does so ambiguous?  All of your examples are anecdotal; as you noted about the Montclair incident, for example, it was either things that had a clear, physical cause (defective wiring in your car, or your subconscious noticing something that it alerted your conscious mind about), or something purely subjective (the voice that 'yelled' in your head).  There's nothing that could be shown to be a miracle in the Biblical sense - no walking on water, no flying unaided, no resurrecting the dead, etc.  Everything in your stories have rational or subjective explanations; nothing needs the supernatural.

It would take God to know the second that a tectonic plate is to slip, now you do have to concede that don't you?

Actually, no.  We're already at the point where we can know within a few seconds that a tectonic plate has slipped.  It is well within the realm of probability that we'll be able to pick up tectonic shocks as they happen, and not even in the distant future, and be able to let people know about them as soon as they happen too.  And for that matter, even the event you're talking about is much easier to explain as a statistical coincidence than as the work of a divinity.  I'll have to review your story before I can explain how, but I strongly suspect that most of the things that happened in it followed logically from each other, with two or maybe three actual coincidences involved.

[WayneHarropson]

Can you address my question about the god Eshu and triplets? How would you explain that Eshu, whose magic number is 3, does not cause triplets to be born?

I can't believe you are expecting an answer to this. 
Why would you ask somebody that only believes in the one God such a question?

You can't produce one example of a premonition like mine of an earthquake and you know it.  So stop blowing smoke.

Just because you can imagine an argument in your mind doesn't mean there is any basis to the argument you imagine.

The problem you have now nogodsforme is you are up against something your smoke can never hide.  You might not know it but you don't have and argument.  Others here might have a sliver of an argument but by now if they aren't embarrassed for you there is something wrong with them.

Is there anyone honest enough to explain to nogodsforme for me where she's gone wrong? You don't even have to agree with me to admit that she's off track.
 
You've obviously made up your mind that no amount of evidence of a god will change your position, you and I can leave it just like that.

[WayneHarropson]

.

It would take God to know the second that a tectonic plate is to slip, now you do have to concede that don't you?

Actually, no.  We're already at the point where we can know within a few seconds that a tectonic plate has slipped. 

You embarrass yourself.  You are grasping. There is absolutely no coorelation between what my incident demonstrated and man's current ability.  Again, isn't here any honest people here that can help jaimehlers with this fallacy, or is it that every foolish argument that refutes god is game on this forum?

I'd like to answer point by point but I think you have embarrassed yourself enough here.

[WayneHarropson]

There can be said to be correlation if.....
There can be said to be causation if.....
The difference between the two - which one applies in a particular case - can be determined by.....

I'll have to work on this later.  I didn't take the college courses to know exactly, that's why I asked for the tutorial.  I'm sorry if I frustrate you but this isn't an intellectual matchup.  And If I don't know an answer, it doesn't mean I'm dismissing it.

To understand this better, have a look here. It explains things quite neatly.

I have read the wiki and so now I can say, I know.

Now what?

This is what I suspect is happening with Anfauglir.  He knows that those concepts are so involved, so complicated, so entangled with variables that they are the ready at hand one fits all obfucation routine that can bamboozle any Christian in to believing that there is a valid argument against a supernatural intervention, when al it is is desperately flinging mud.

As long as the discussion can be kept tangled up in indefineables, atheists can continue to hide from the reality of the God of the universe.  It works good if you are avoiding the truth, but it will never work on me. So give up.

[jaimehlers]

You embarrass yourself.  You are grasping. There is absolutely no coorelation between what my incident demonstrated and man's current ability.  Again, isn't here any honest people here that can help jaimehlers with this fallacy, or is it that every foolish argument that refutes god is game on this forum?

I'd like to answer point by point but I think you have embarrassed yourself enough here.

The only person who's embarrassing himself is you, Wayne.  I think you're just using this so-called "fallacy" to try to avoid addressing the other points I raised.  That's called dodging, and it's not tolerated here.

What your incident demonstrated was a textbook example of how statistical probability works.  So in a way, you're correct that there isn't any relationship between it and our ability to detect tremors and the like, but it's not the one you think it is.  As far as earthquake detection goes, the fact of the matter is that we do have devices that are capable of detecting earthquakes with high precision, even before the major fault line goes in some cases.  It is frankly dishonest of you to make accusations like that, not because I'm wrong, but because it offends your preconceptions and your belief in what your god can do.

[WayneHarropson]

You embarrass yourself.  You are grasping. There is absolutely no coorelation between what my incident demonstrated and man's current ability.  Again, isn't there any honest people here that can help jaimehlers with this fallacy, or is it that every foolish argument that refutes god is game on this forum?

I'd like to answer point by point but I think you have embarrassed yourself enough here.

The only person who's embarrassing himself is you, Wayne.  I think you're just using this so-called "fallacy" to try to avoid addressing the other points I raised.  That's called dodging, and it's not tolerated here.


What your incident demonstrated was a textbook example of how statistical probability works.  So in a way, you're correct that there isn't any relationship between it and our ability to detect tremors and the like, but it's not the one you think it is.  As far as earthquake detection goes, the fact of the matter is that we do have devices that are capable of detecting earthquakes with high precision, even before the major fault line goes in some cases.  It is frankly dishonest of you to make accusations like that, not because I'm wrong, but because it offends your preconceptions and your belief in what your god can do.

Anyone reading this knows that you just confirmed my point.
Any offers to defend his case?

[wright]

You embarrass yourself.  You are grasping. There is absolutely no coorelation between what my incident demonstrated and man's current ability.  Again, isn't there any honest people here that can help jaimehlers with this fallacy, or is it that every foolish argument that refutes god is game on this forum?

I'd like to answer point by point but I think you have embarrassed yourself enough here.

The only person who's embarrassing himself is you, Wayne.  I think you're just using this so-called "fallacy" to try to avoid addressing the other points I raised.  That's called dodging, and it's not tolerated here.


What your incident demonstrated was a textbook example of how statistical probability works.  So in a way, you're correct that there isn't any relationship between it and our ability to detect tremors and the like, but it's not the one you think it is.  As far as earthquake detection goes, the fact of the matter is that we do have devices that are capable of detecting earthquakes with high precision, even before the major fault line goes in some cases.  It is frankly dishonest of you to make accusations like that, not because I'm wrong, but because it offends your preconceptions and your belief in what your god can do.

Anyone reading this knows that you just confirmed my point.
Any offers to defend his case?

Hey, Wayne.

I've been following the thread. Anfauglir and jaimehlers have patiently and at some length explained their arguments and the terms used. Their defense of their positions is quite adequate.

Conversely, you have yet to show that your anecdotes are anything more than that. You freely admit that at least some of your experiences are highly subjective, but refuse to entertain the notion they might have a non-supernatural cause. Your reasoning, as shown in your "prophetic" stories, is so specious that Anfauglir has found it necessary to spoon-feed you some pretty basic concepts.

I sincerely apologize if this comes across as condescending, which is something I very much dislike, but I'm calling it as I see it here. Watching this discussion has been very instructive. You are clearly a reasonably intelligent, educated person, yet your reason with regard to your religious faith has utterly failed you.

[WayneHarropson]

I sincerely apologize if this comes across as condescending, which is something I very much dislike, but I'm calling it as I see it here. Watching this discussion has been very instructive. You are clearly a reasonably intelligent, educated person, yet your reason with regard to your religious faith has utterly failed you.

Thanks for keeping an eye on me.  Aside from your assessment, have you ever, in any case offered any correction to atheists while they are making their cases, or do you forgive all their fallacies?

Please defend J...s last argument that somehow men are getting close to detecting earthquakes so my having been given a vision, placed in the same seat two days later and had the fulfillment occur, is just no big deal.  Do you agree with that wright?

Please defend his comparing the two in your own terms, that is if you have read and understand what we are talking about. Here:  http://tinyurl.com/EQuake1

You are the only person to give me a + and I will ever be grateful.
Wayne

[WayneHarropson]

wright,
I can't help but get the feeling that I'm making my case with people who form their opinions from only what they read here, which was always the case with screwtape to my eternal amusement.

So, here is what I need from you in order to assess how seriously to take your admonitions.

Which if any of my stories have you read?

It is so critically important, that not knowing it about any one individual determines the usefulness of any conversation with them.

So, what have you read of mine that you can base your assessment from?

Here's the database:

*** SEARCH FOR PROOF OF PSYCHOSIS HERE***> http://tinyurl.com/WaynesEpisodes 
Have Wayne committed, win a prize.  (V.2)

[Add Homonym]

Jesus, what page is the earthquake claim on? I get "earthquake" on nearly every page.

Wayne, I switched off listening to you, when you said Obama was Idi Amin, or some shit. It's not like I love Obama, but I know irrational hate when I see it.

About a year ago, we had some poor guy, here, who reckoned he was possessed. It looked to us, like he had schizophrenia. The "demon" was giving him information, which he claimed he didn't previously know about, but it looked rather like he would have known about it, but this "demon" was messing with his memory.

So, an example of the way this works, is that I could read a book, then put the book into a cupboard, instantly forget it, and then have a vision from the demon that I would find something important in the book, and then go read it, and think "OMG, there's no way I could have known that was in the book." This is proof that the demon is real, and very knowledgeable. There are lots of variations to this trick, inc. prophecy. (This guy reckoned the demon could wake him up at precise times, but he was probably staring at the clock all night.)

Another problem I have to deal with a lot, is people who lie continuously. They just make all sorts of shit up, because they enjoy doing it.

False anecdotes of the paranormal are very easy to get away with. I can just say "The night my grandma died, she came to me and sat on the end of my bed, and told me about a ring she had left under the sofa. I went and checked, and there it was." Apparently, anyone who listens to this story is supposed to believe it, or at least jump through hoops, to come up with skeptical explanations, about how I might have seen the ring under the sofa with my subconscious. But, I just made the whole thing up, because I like getting attention with stupid stories.

Another problem is embellished stories. A story that might be a bland coincidence, can be transformed into an astonishing coincidence, using bad memory or lies, or shifting events just a touch.

Do I believe any of this applies to you?

Well, no, not totally. I think you're the type of guy who has a dream about Idi Amin conquering USA, and can some how equate a genocidal mass murderer with Obama, because he is BLACK.

When did your hatred and fear of black people start, Wayne?

[jaimehlers]

Upon rereading your earthquake story, I'm no more convinced than I was the first time I read it.  According to your anecdote, you had a vision of the restaurant going into upheaval, with people panicking.  But you didn't actually get any useful information out of it, just a scene that could have represented several possible events.  Indeed, you freely admitted that you didn't know for sure what would happen until it actually did.  The only thing you actually got out of your 'vision' was an increased certainty that your god was passing on messages to you - an outcome that was only useful to you, and not even all that useful.

Let me reiterate my earlier point in order to illustrate the problems with your reasoning.  First off, you clearly lived in an earthquake-prone area, meaning it is well within the realm of probability that you could have had a simple daydream the likely reactions of people to an earthquake based on where you were.  Second, you evidently ate at that diner regularly, given that you sat at the same seat the two times you described being there.  Small diners like that tend to have a regular clientele, who tend to follow the same routines; going around the same time, sitting in the same place, eating the same foods, etc.  Neither of those can be considered coincidental, in other words.

So, you ate there and had a vision that you couldn't really figure out.  Then, the next time you ate there, an earthquake happened, making the events of your vision a 'premonition'.  However, it was singularly useless as far as premonitions go.  You didn't get a time frame, or an idea of what was going to happen.  Nothing that could have helped you warn other people that there was an earthquake coming in time so that they could be ready for it.  Indeed, it would have been a lot more convincing if you'd have been able to predict, two days in advance, that there would be an earthquake that would affect the area so that people could have taken precautions.

Instead, you get a vision that you can't really understand until after the supposedly-predicted event occurs.  Far too late to actually do anything that might actually prove that you had this information in advance.  All it did was reaffirm your faith and give you a neat story to tell.  Except that it isn't really all that convincing to someone who's not credulous.

Furthermore, the other coincidences you mentioned don't really mean much.  Pat Robertson announcing his candidacy in New York, so an earthquake happens in California.  Furthermore, it happens right as you talk about him having an 'impact' on the nation, after getting involved in someone else's conversation, a woman who happened to be a telephone prayer counselor.  Frankly, those are pretty mundane coincidences.  And for what?  To convince Wayne Harropson just a little bit more of his belief in God.  Not to do something about an earthquake which did hundreds of millions of dollars of property damage, several deaths, and probably quite a few injuries, not to make Pat Robertson's chances of winning the election greater...just to make Wayne Harropson's belief stronger.

You'll have to excuse me, but upon analyzing this anecdote, I don't just find it to be unconvincing, I find it to be pretty ludicrous.  Have you even realized just how this makes you and your god look?  Your god sends a vision that could mean just about anything, just to you, out of the multitudes of people who lived there, and it's so vague you don't even realize what it meant until after it's already happened.  Furthermore, several people died because of this earthquake, with many more injured, not to mention the thousands of homes and businesses damaged or destroyed by the earthquake.  And then you claim that your vision was actually a supernatural event sent by your god, even though there's nothing about it that requires a supernatural explanation to begin with.

And now you have the gall to lecture me because I dare to say that we might be able to do better than that with our technology some day?  That we might actually be able to give enough advance notice of an earthquake to keep people from being hurt or killed, perhaps letting them minimize the property damage as well?  Not going to fly.

[WayneHarropson]

Well, no, not totally. I think you're the type of guy who has a dream about Idi Amin conquering USA, and can some how equate a genocidal mass murderer with Obama, because he is BLACK.
When did your hatred and fear of black people start, Wayne?

Man do I love that question!  I mean I love it I love it I love it.
This is where I get to demonstrate what I have always wanted demonstrated in the most emphatic terms.
Again, thank you.

Before you belted out this Add Homonym of racism to dismiss my position on Obama/Amin, your assessment was quite judicious, so I just know that the following information will not only be valuable to you, but you will be able to blend it into your well developed ability to reason, and produce even more of that reasonableness that commends you.

Hang on.  Here Goes.

When Alan Keyes campaigned for the republican nomination (1996) He had a campaign stop in Costa Mesa that I attended about seven miles from here. After the program I stood in line to shake Alan's hand and while waiting I couldn't help notice that he had his son with him that looked my daughters age.  I had been a fan of Alan so much so that I had played video tapes of his speeches to the priesthood of my church, who guardedly tolerated it.  The man is a spectacular speaker and debater and was more courageous than any other politician of the time. My daughter was thirteen at the time and as I stood in line I began to fantasize about my daughter gettin to know his son, and then eventually get married.  I was planning a wedding right there in line!

In 2011 when the Idi Amin vision's meaning was revealed to me (20 some odd years after, like the darkKnight thing) I for the first time wrote what ai remembered about the Keyes/Harropson wedding fantasy, I went on line to see what alan had been up to, because I really hadn't been following any more than what the major news might report.  The first article and video I came upon was that he had been protesting Notre Dame for allowing Obama to speak on their Catholic campus after he had pushed for late term baby executions.  He was arrested and jailed, for protesting Obama!  He really is my hero.  And just to make it special, he was arrested on my birthday, May 8.

That might not mean much to you, but I thought it was pretty cool.

Now. What was that Add Homonym?


I don't think you know who you are dealing with here, but it is a pleasure to have you set the scene so adroitly for me.  If you honestly haven't read the earthquake story it's in the links page waynesepisodes and called Cold Eggs at Pauls.

*** SEARCH FOR PROOF OF PSYCHOSIS HERE***> http://tinyurl.com/WaynesEpisodes 
Have Wayne committed, win a prize.  (V.2)

[WayneHarropson]

Upon rereading your earthquake story,......... Not going to fly.

 
The man protesteth too much methinks.

Whistling in the dark huh?  It's OK, just lt let it sink in....it will.

[wright]

Thanks for keeping an eye on me.  Aside from your assessment, have you ever, in any case offered any correction to atheists while they are making their cases, or do you forgive all their fallacies?

You're in the definite minority on this forum, and the only theist currently in this thread, so I have some sympathy (though in all honesty little agreement) with you. As to your question, I've disagreed with other atheist regulars here occasionally. Here are links to the ones I remember:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,24413.msg543636.html#msg543636

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,24286.msg541133.html#msg541133

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,13942.msg309075.html#msg309075

Please defend J...s last argument that somehow men are getting close to detecting earthquakes so my having been given a vision, placed in the same seat two days later and had the fulfillment occur, is just no big deal.  Do you agree with that wright?

Please defend his comparing the two in your own terms, that is if you have read and understand what we are talking about. Here:  http://tinyurl.com/EQuake1

You are the only person to give me a + and I will ever be grateful.
Wayne

For starters earthquake detection and prediction, especially the former, are pretty advanced considering their newness as distinct areas of study. There is a great deal of interest worldwide in quakes and related topics (tectonics, volcanism, composition of the earth's mantle, etc.). So as to how quakes are currently detected, see "Measuring and locating earthquakes" in this wiki:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake#Measuring_and_locating_earthquakes

Predicting quakes is certainly possible but still imprecise with current knowledge. From the wiki:

Many methods have been developed for predicting the time and place in which earthquakes will occur. Despite considerable research efforts by seismologists, scientifically reproducible predictions cannot yet be made to a specific day or month.[59] However, for well-understood faults the probability that a segment may rupture during the next few decades can be estimated.[60]

Earthquake warning systems have been developed that can provide regional notification of an earthquake in progress, but before the ground surface has begun to move, potentially allowing people within the system's range to seek shelter before the earthquake's impact is felt.

Here's a bit more about warning systems:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_warning_system

Given those advances in seismic instruments and general knowledge in related fields, I think jaime has made a quite reasonable case.

And yes, I followed jaime's and your exchange about your earthquake story. I also read the original story. I find your supernatural explanation unconvincing and without objective proof, while jaime offers perfectly reasonable explanations for the events and coincidences you think are so compelling.

[JeffPT]

*** SEARCH FOR PROOF OF PSYCHOSIS HERE***> http://tinyurl.com/WaynesEpisodes 
Have Wayne committed, win a prize.  (V.2)

Wayne, you're not psychotic.  Aside from the fact that you probably don't actually know what that means (you've likely heard that term bandied around so you figure you'll earn some sort of brain points for using it), your only problem is that your just factually incorrect about your presuppositions about God.  And when your presuppositions are wrong, your conclusions are also going to be wrong. 

What you are asking from us is to accept, on just your statement, that the events that took place during those 2 'earthquake story' days had a supernatural origin.  And honestly, I don't care if every event took place exactly as you said it did (which it probably did not), your personal testimony doesn't mean shit.  It really doesn't.  It's not evidence for anything at all.  Would you accept the personal testimony of someone who claimed an alien abduction scenario?  Would you accept the personal testimony of a Muslim who said that the deaths of those 20 children in Newtown CT was a sign from Allah that He is angry with American Christians? Of course you wouldn't, but I defy you to prove he's wrong. You can't because it's a claim outside of the realm of proof, just like all of yours are.  In the end, it's just far, far more likely that A, the events were coincidental, B, you confabulated (look it up) the story, making it fit more readily with your beliefs, or C, you're just making it up and the only event we can check on is the earthquake. 

Now, if you had walked into the restaurant on the day of the earthquake and told everyone the exact time of the earthquake and you were correct... and every person in the restaurant looked outside the window and saw a giant ghostly hand lift the tectonic plate under the ground at the exact moment after you said "I wonder if a really big earthquake is going to hit here right now?", and each of them came on here and gave their personal testimony to it, and five of them posted video footage of the giant hand, all from different angles, and all showing the same scene, then you MIGHT have something with which you can claim GOD had a 'hand (pun 1!)' in it.  Otherwise, earthquakes happen.  2 religious people talking about Pat Robertson happens.  And cold eggs happen.  God not required. 

Honestly Wayne.  Just look at it from an outside perspective.  Step out of your God belief for just a moment and analyze what we're trying to tell you.  Let go of your emotional attachment to your God idea and honestly see how easy it is to explain your stories without bringing God into it at all.  If God doesn't exist, everything you've said could still have happened exactly as you say it did and you KNOW it.  It would just be coincidences.  And everyone experiences those.   These coincidences (and really, so many of them aren't even that) are only evidence for you because of your faulty first premise.  To illustrate just how badly a poor initial assumption can make things, just look back at the example I used of the man who starts with the assumption that peanut butter has healing properties.  Wouldn't the alleviation of knee pain after peanut butter application be evidence that peanut butter has healing properties?  Only to someone who FIRST believes that peanut butter has healing properties.  To everyone else, the knee got better for other reasons and the guy is 'nuts (pun 2!) for thinking peanut butter was the actual solution.  If the first premise is wrong, then a faulty conclusion comes out.  That's exactly what you're doing with God. 

Have you ever had a coincidental event happen in your life that you didn't attribute to God?  If yes, why can't they all be?  Tell me why they can't.  And 'because they're so unlikely' is NOT a reason.  Unlikely things happen.  We've been over that.  It has to be MORE than that. 

I don't think you know who you are dealing with here, but it is a pleasure to have you set the scene so adroitly for me. 

I think if you really knew what most of us thought of you, you'd be pretty embarrassed by it.  You're not winning here.  Whatever message you think you got from your God that placed you here, I think you misread it, because you're not getting anywhere. 

We know your type, Wayne.  You're just a far more gullible, arrogant and deluded version of it.   The only reason people keep talking to you is because there's so few other Christians posting.  You're a chew toy until someone smarter comes along. 

The man protesteth too much methinks.

Whistling in the dark huh?  It's OK, just lt let it sink in....it will.

If it were only one person, then you might have a point Wayne.  But I dare say there isn't a single one of us that would disagree with his breakdown of your nonsense.  Simply put... He's right and you're not.  He picked apart your story quite well and showed beyond any reasonable doubt that the events are explainable without the slightest need for a deity.  And you responded with nothing more than the equivalent of a condescending finger wag.  A dick move, but predictable from someone as arrogant as you.  But then you say stuff like this as if you're making points and that would be funny if it wasn't so sad.  It's not sinking in.  You're still wrong about God.  It's not real.  I don't know what your end hope was here, but I'd bet everything I own that you're going to walk away unfulfilled.  If what you've presented so far is the best you've got, then make no mistake... you'll leave here soon without a single one of us thinking you're right.  Sorry to break it to you. 

I just find it so sad that you were never taught how to think.  You were taught WHAT to think, but not HOW to think.  It's such an injustice. 

[WayneHarropson]

I find your supernatural explanation unconvincing and without objective proof, while jaime offers perfectly reasonable explanations for the events and coincidences you think are so compelling.

Are you thereby giving me credit for being just a little ahead of the curve on the earthquake prediction evolution of man or something. wright! you have to be kidding me.

Cant you see, that for any of you to introduce the advancements we have made in our ability to predict earthquakes is so utterly irrelevant as to be laughable?  What in the world does it have to do with my having a vision sitting in the same seat two days before an earthquake and then being in that same seat when it occurred.  What does that have to do with mans ability to predict earthquakes scientifically. 

I'm shocked and embarrassed for you both now.

[Anfauglir]

I have read the wiki and so now I can say, I know.

Now what?

This is what I suspect is happening with Anfauglir.  He knows that those concepts are so involved, so complicated, so entangled with variables that they are the ready at hand one fits all obfucation routine that can bamboozle any Christian in to believing that there is a valid argument against a supernatural intervention, when al it is is desperately flinging mud.

I'm glad you've read the Wiki, Wayne, and that you are now clear on what correlation is, and what a causal relationship is - and (because you read the whole Wiki) you know how to tell one from the other.

Correlation - put simply - is where two variables show similar trends.  This will often be where both are trending in the same direction, or may be an inverse relationship (where one goes up and the other goes down).  Correlation, however, does not necessarily mean that there is any connection between the two variables.  For example, we could show correlation between the amount grown by the plants in my back garden, and the amount of time I spend sunbathing there.  But that does not mean that my sunbathing causes the plants to grow faster, nor that the plants growing somehow forces me into the garden more.

A causal relationship, however, is where we can say that the one variable IS having effect on the other.  That when one variable changes, we will see - and be able to precict - a similar change in the other.  For example, there is a causal relationship between the heat and light from the sun that reaches the earth, and the amount of time I spend sunbathing.  As the one increases, so will the other, and as the sun decreases, so will the sunbathing.  There is a causal relationship between the two, which operates in a one-way direction: clearly I can NOT influence the heat and light from the sun by increasing my hours spent sunbathing.

Any arguments with either of the above, Wayne, before we continue?

And so my third question - which is how you can tell if there is a causal relationship between two things, or just a correlation.

This is a crucial question I need you to answer Wayne, as it touches on not only the flawed data and your interpretation of Barton's work, but also on every story that you have told here.  This isn't even a "test" as such, as I am more interested in how (and why) you determine the difference than in whether you get it "right" or not.

[Anfauglir]

It would take God to know the second that a tectonic plate is to slip, now you do have to concede that don't you?

Actually, no.  We're already at the point where we can know within a few seconds that a tectonic plate has slipped. 

You embarrass yourself.  You are grasping. There is absolutely no coorelation between what my incident demonstrated and man's current ability. 

Actually.....yes there is.  Man's ability to predict earthquakes has been increasing.  YOUR ability to predict earthquakes has been increasing.  So there is, indeed, correlation between the two.  Its a tiny, tiny correlation....but it exists.  What you meant to say above, is that there is no causal relationship between the two....hence why I have been banging on so long about the crucial difference between the two terms.

So you have asserted here that there is no causal relationship between your ability to predict earthquakes, and sciences.

But how do you know that, Wayne?  How can you state it so certainly?  How - if you'll excuse me banging the point home - do you determine if two things have a causal relationship, or not?