Theism Analogy: Living Rocks of Death Valley

[boatsnguitars]

The mystery of the sailing stones
Located on the border of California and Nevada, Death Valley National Park was designated in 1933, and is home to one of the world's strangest phenomena: rocks that move along the desert ground with no gravitational cause. Known as "sailing stones," the rocks vary in size from a few ounces to hundreds of pounds. Though no one has ever seen them actually move in person, the trails left behind the stones and periodic changes in their location make it clear that they do.

The rocks of Racetrack Playa are composed of dolomite and syenite, the same materials that make up the surrounding mountains. They tumble down due to the forces of erosion, coming to rest on the parched ground below. Once they reach the level surface of the playa, the rocks somehow move horizontally, leaving perfect tracks behind them to record their path.

Many of the largest rocks have left behind trails as long as 1,500 feet, suggesting that they've moved a long way indeed from their original location. Rocks with a rough-bottomed surface leave straight tracks, while smooth-bottomed rocks tend to wander. The sailing stones have been observed and studied since the early 1900s, and several theories have been suggested to explain their mysterious movements.

"Proposed explanations run the gamut from natural to paranormal to alien. Strange magnetic forces, psychic energy, alien spacecraft, teenage pranksters, and even transdimensional vortices have all been proposed. "

Theist explanation:
Supernatural forces exist. God is revealing Himself to us. God is moving them.

The wonder this phenomenon instills likewise reminds us of the majesty and power of the Invisible Intelligence (cf. Romans 1.20), creating the very physics making moving rocks possible.

As I read about the sailing stones, I could not help but recall the words of Jesus when asked by the Pharisees to rebuke His followers. The occasion was Jesus’ triumphant entry into Jerusalem. The people were crying out their “hosannas” to the Lord. Jesus told the Pharisees, quoting from the prophet Habakkuk, that “if these become silent, the stones will cry out!” (Luke 19.40 NASB; Habakkuk 2.11) Indeed!

If you ever question your worth to God, recall the sailing stones. Without the benefit of intelligence or purpose, they still point to their Creator. They appear to be immovable, and yet are pliable by the laws God put in place. As I take stock of what I can do, I note that even I can do more than the sailing stones, possessing locomotion and free will. How shameful, then, when I choose to sit silent as a boulder. May God use me like a rock so others can see my deeds and give God the glory (Matthew 5.13-16).

Further "science" from theists was that if the stones were pushed by a flood, the tracks would have been erased. Or, wind isn't strong enough. etc. There were many knee jerk answers to the problem, all included supernatural elements - because to them, that's the first explanation when something is unexplained.


Scientific explanation:

In 2014, scientists were able to capture the movement of the stones for the first time using time-lapse photography. The results strongly suggest that the sailing stones are the result of a perfect balance of ice, water, and wind. In the winter of 2014, rain formed a small pond that froze overnight and thawed the next day, creating a vast sheet of ice that was reduced by midday to only a few millimeters thick. Driven by a light wind, this sheet broke up and accumulated behind the stones, slowly pushing them forward.
https://www.nationalparks.org/connect/b ... f%20pounds.
https://earthsky.org/earth/death-valley ... ry-solved/

This is what is happening with the Shroud of Turin, Evolution, Climate Change, etc: Theists (and other wackos) offering ridiculous "answers" to solve very mundane problems.

So, what is your explanation for the rocks moving in Death Valley?

[TRANSPONDER]

...But the Bible actually says the light was night and dark, morning and evening. Thus it is clearly light from the sun.

That is just your interpretation. There could have been other light source to cause day and night.

The go -to hypothesis is that the Bible means what it says, and that disagrees with science. We may deny the science and what the Bible apparently says and just make up any excuse, or we may do evidence and reason. It's a choice. For those who are still able to make choices,anyway.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #45]

The Faithclaim was here" My faith is based upon Christ Himself, upon truth... and it (faith) was a gift, given to me. I serve Him and follow Him out of love." That is on Faith (and apparently imparted revealed Truth) rather than evidence. While I respect people's right to belive in Faith imparting truth, it does not make a good case.

I think we have wires crossed here.

I did not state that faith imparts truth. Christ imparts truth. My faith is in Him, based on Him and the truth that He imparts.

As to the moving stones, the materialist default obtains, here. The way logic and evidence works is, to make a natural explanation (even if unknown) the default, not immediately leap to a supernatural explanation.

Well, like I said, both 1213 and I assumed a natural explanation for the moving stones.

That, from NDEs to origins of Life is why the supernatural claims fail, until validated. They do not win by default or 'the scientists have no explanation'.

I agree they do not win by default (or because "scientists have no explanation.")

It is the built -in Fail of theistic and cult -think.

Except you have been given evidence in this very thread of theists who do not look to 'supernatural' for the default position. And surely you know there are indeed atheists that default to 'aliens did it.'

People don't have to be theists to default to a supernatural position.
People don't have to be atheists to think or reason logically.


Peace again to you!

But your claim that Christ imparts Truth, (apparently by revelation) is a faith - claim. And that some theists may opt for a natural explanation as the go -to hypothesis (even without an explanatory hypothesis) is what undermines faith -claims/appeal to unknowns, because they are tacitly admitting that i the way to reason.

OR... a person is simply opting for a truthful explanation (such as naturally occurring phenomenon in the case of the moving stones). What if that person simply searches for a truthful explanation in any scenario? Including faith? I certainly have not appealed to the unknown in any scenario. I know that Christ can be known and so can God be known. That is a claim I make based on the words of Christ and the personal experience that proves those words correct.

So here is what I thought when I read the OP:

First: the faith claim (I serve Christ; claims about Christ and His Father come first). Although it does not appear the pastor is suggesting the stones were moved by supernatural forces to begin with, I looked at the claim the OP made about the pastor's words regarding stones crying out. I tested that claim, holding it up to the light that is Christ. I know the stones that cry out are people (living stones being prepared and/or placed into the living Temple: Christ, who is Himself the cornerstone, the Rock). Therefore the claim that these moving stones are connected to the stones crying out doesn't make sense (at least not for the reason given), and I have no reason to accept the 'supernatural' explanation.

Second: there is most likely a simple natural explanation for this (especially considering the above) - perhaps an explanation just not yet discovered (such as with the Easter Island Statues, or the supposed bleeding eyes of Mary statues). Flies constantly gathering in a porch area are most likely attracted to a food and/or breeding source. Not a ghost. Not a haunting. (Nor does my Lord ever teach that flies are signs of ghosts or haunting.) And it was, in fact, the rotting carcass of an animal that had crawled into the walls and died that was causing the infestation.


Unless there is a real reason to consider another explanation, then it makes sense (to me) to assume a natural one. How does that undermine faith (assuming I am understanding your point correctly)? If a person has faith, do they have to automatically leap to a "supernatural" explanation for anything in nature that has yet to be explained?



Peace again to you.

[TRANSPONDER]

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #45]

The Faithclaim was here" My faith is based upon Christ Himself, upon truth... and it (faith) was a gift, given to me. I serve Him and follow Him out of love." That is on Faith (and apparently imparted revealed Truth) rather than evidence. While I respect people's right to belive in Faith imparting truth, it does not make a good case.

I think we have wires crossed here.

I did not state that faith imparts truth. Christ imparts truth. My faith is in Him, based on Him and the truth that He imparts.

As to the moving stones, the materialist default obtains, here. The way logic and evidence works is, to make a natural explanation (even if unknown) the default, not immediately leap to a supernatural explanation.

Well, like I said, both 1213 and I assumed a natural explanation for the moving stones.

That, from NDEs to origins of Life is why the supernatural claims fail, until validated. They do not win by default or 'the scientists have no explanation'.

I agree they do not win by default (or because "scientists have no explanation.")

It is the built -in Fail of theistic and cult -think.

Except you have been given evidence in this very thread of theists who do not look to 'supernatural' for the default position. And surely you know there are indeed atheists that default to 'aliens did it.'

People don't have to be theists to default to a supernatural position.
People don't have to be atheists to think or reason logically.


Peace again to you!

But your claim that Christ imparts Truth, (apparently by revelation) is a faith - claim. And that some theists may opt for a natural explanation as the go -to hypothesis (even without an explanatory hypothesis) is what undermines faith -claims/appeal to unknowns, because they are tacitly admitting that i the way to reason.

OR... a person is simply opting for a truthful explanation (such as naturally occurring phenomenon in the case of the moving stones). What if that person simply searches for a truthful explanation in any scenario? Including faith? I certainly have not appealed to the unknown in any scenario. I know that Christ can be known and so can God be known. That is a claim I make based on the words of Christ and the personal experience that proves those words correct.

So here is what I thought when I read the OP:

First: the faith claim (I serve Christ; claims about Christ and His Father come first). Although it does not appear the pastor is suggesting the stones were moved by supernatural forces to begin with, I looked at the claim the OP made about the pastor's words regarding stones crying out. I tested that claim, holding it up to the light that is Christ. I know the stones that cry out are people (living stones being prepared and/or placed into the living Temple: Christ, who is Himself the cornerstone, the Rock). Therefore the claim that these moving stones are connected to the stones crying out doesn't make sense (at least not for the reason given), and I have no reason to accept the 'supernatural' explanation.

Second: there is most likely a simple natural explanation for this (especially considering the above) - perhaps an explanation just not yet discovered (such as with the Easter Island Statues, or the supposed bleeding eyes of Mary statues). Flies constantly gathering in a porch area are most likely attracted to a food and/or breeding source. Not a ghost. Not a haunting. (Nor does my Lord ever teach that flies are signs of ghosts or haunting.) And it was, in fact, the rotting carcass of an animal that had crawled into the walls and died that was causing the infestation.


Unless there is a real reason to consider another explanation, then it makes sense (to me) to assume a natural one. How does that undermine faith (assuming I am understanding your point correctly)? If a person has faith, do they have to automatically leap to a "supernatural" explanation for anything in nature that has yet to be explained?



Peace again to you.

I respect your right to believe what you believe and say what and why. But posting opens up rejoinder. What you claim to know about God or Jesus imparting truth to you through personal revelation or the Bible or both, backed up by your personal experiences don't strike me as compelling evidence. Good enough for you, but not for me, just sayin'.

I agree with you about a natural explanation for the moving stones, flies congregating etc. i responded to what I recall (and reposted) was a faithclaim, sofar as I could see, as in the one about getting 'Truth' from God. ideas come intomy head,too, and I do not credit the bible as true on basics.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #45]

The Faithclaim was here" My faith is based upon Christ Himself, upon truth... and it (faith) was a gift, given to me. I serve Him and follow Him out of love." That is on Faith (and apparently imparted revealed Truth) rather than evidence. While I respect people's right to belive in Faith imparting truth, it does not make a good case.

I think we have wires crossed here.

I did not state that faith imparts truth. Christ imparts truth. My faith is in Him, based on Him and the truth that He imparts.

As to the moving stones, the materialist default obtains, here. The way logic and evidence works is, to make a natural explanation (even if unknown) the default, not immediately leap to a supernatural explanation.

Well, like I said, both 1213 and I assumed a natural explanation for the moving stones.

That, from NDEs to origins of Life is why the supernatural claims fail, until validated. They do not win by default or 'the scientists have no explanation'.

I agree they do not win by default (or because "scientists have no explanation.")

It is the built -in Fail of theistic and cult -think.

Except you have been given evidence in this very thread of theists who do not look to 'supernatural' for the default position. And surely you know there are indeed atheists that default to 'aliens did it.'

People don't have to be theists to default to a supernatural position.
People don't have to be atheists to think or reason logically.


Peace again to you!

But your claim that Christ imparts Truth, (apparently by revelation) is a faith - claim. And that some theists may opt for a natural explanation as the go -to hypothesis (even without an explanatory hypothesis) is what undermines faith -claims/appeal to unknowns, because they are tacitly admitting that i the way to reason.

OR... a person is simply opting for a truthful explanation (such as naturally occurring phenomenon in the case of the moving stones). What if that person simply searches for a truthful explanation in any scenario? Including faith? I certainly have not appealed to the unknown in any scenario. I know that Christ can be known and so can God be known. That is a claim I make based on the words of Christ and the personal experience that proves those words correct.

So here is what I thought when I read the OP:

First: the faith claim (I serve Christ; claims about Christ and His Father come first). Although it does not appear the pastor is suggesting the stones were moved by supernatural forces to begin with, I looked at the claim the OP made about the pastor's words regarding stones crying out. I tested that claim, holding it up to the light that is Christ. I know the stones that cry out are people (living stones being prepared and/or placed into the living Temple: Christ, who is Himself the cornerstone, the Rock). Therefore the claim that these moving stones are connected to the stones crying out doesn't make sense (at least not for the reason given), and I have no reason to accept the 'supernatural' explanation.

Second: there is most likely a simple natural explanation for this (especially considering the above) - perhaps an explanation just not yet discovered (such as with the Easter Island Statues, or the supposed bleeding eyes of Mary statues). Flies constantly gathering in a porch area are most likely attracted to a food and/or breeding source. Not a ghost. Not a haunting. (Nor does my Lord ever teach that flies are signs of ghosts or haunting.) And it was, in fact, the rotting carcass of an animal that had crawled into the walls and died that was causing the infestation.


Unless there is a real reason to consider another explanation, then it makes sense (to me) to assume a natural one. How does that undermine faith (assuming I am understanding your point correctly)? If a person has faith, do they have to automatically leap to a "supernatural" explanation for anything in nature that has yet to be explained?



Peace again to you.

I respect your right to believe what you believe and say what and why. But posting opens up rejoinder. What you claim to know about God or Jesus imparting truth to you through personal revelation or the Bible or both, backed up by your personal experiences don't strike me as compelling evidence. Good enough for you, but not for me, just sayin'.

I agree with you about a natural explanation for the moving stones, flies congregating etc. i responded to what I recall (and reposted) was a faithclaim, sofar as I could see, as in the one about getting 'Truth' from God. ideas come intomy head,too, and I do not credit the bible as true on basics.

Someone else's personal experience would not be compelling evidence for me either. Enough to consider something, perhaps, but for more than that, I would need something more. I have no issue with your stance on that.

**

The purpose of this thread appears to be demonstrating that "theistic thinking" - as if there is such a thing - is wrong. At best, stupid or foolish. At worse, dangerous.

But there are rational and irrational theists.
Just as there are rational and irrational atheists.

So there may be rational and irrational thinking (though very rarely would one person display only rational thinking at all times). But to create a term called "theistic thinking" as if theists are stupid, foolish, irrational - simply because they are theists? Not only is that untrue, it demonstrates prejudice (despite the creed of the secular humanist on another thread <- which the author of the OP claims to hold).


I posted to demonstrate against that claim, for the author of the OP and anyone else who holds to that view.


Peace again to you.

[TRANSPONDER]

I reckon 'theistic thinking'(and cult - think) is a Thing, just as rational, logical, critical and indeed scientific thinking is a thing, or a method. Succinctly, one starts with the evidence and builds conclusions from it.

Theist (and cult) thinking in my experience, starts with the conclusion and fiddles the evidence to fit it. To take these moving rocks as an example. A puzzle. The materialist view suggests there is a natural cause but what is not known.

The theistic or supernatural type of thinking argues there must be some supernatural agency because 'science can't explain it'.

I liked the stages of research. First to check what was actually happening and then finding a theory of why. The ice - sheet theory (validated or not) is an explanation that needs no supernatural agency, so that is the go -to hypothesis. Possible alternative theories should have good support and 'the controversy' should be kept out of the classroom. I would trust we will not hear a supernatural suggestion about those at least.

[tam]

Peace to you,

I reckon 'theistic thinking'(and cult - think) is a Thing, just as rational, logical, critical and indeed scientific thinking is a thing, or a method. Succinctly, one starts with the evidence and builds conclusions from it.

Theist (and cult) thinking in my experience, starts with the conclusion and fiddles the evidence to fit it. To take these moving rocks as an example. A puzzle. The materialist view suggests there is a natural cause but what is not known.

The theistic or supernatural type of thinking argues there must be some supernatural agency because 'science can't explain it'.

I am a theist. 1213 is a theist.

Neither one of us argued for that.

So how can you call your description "theistic thinking"?


Peace again.

[TRANSPONDER]

Peace to you,

I reckon 'theistic thinking'(and cult - think) is a Thing, just as rational, logical, critical and indeed scientific thinking is a thing, or a method. Succinctly, one starts with the evidence and builds conclusions from it.

Theist (and cult) thinking in my experience, starts with the conclusion and fiddles the evidence to fit it. To take these moving rocks as an example. A puzzle. The materialist view suggests there is a natural cause but what is not known.

The theistic or supernatural type of thinking argues there must be some supernatural agency because 'science can't explain it'.

I am a theist. 1213 is a theist.

Neither one of us argued for that.

So how can you call your description "theistic thinking"?


Peace again.

Another thing I am aware of is 'choose your battles'. Aside from individuals like you or 1213, others might accept unknown natural explanations for some puzzles, or they may insist on a supernatural element, like in NDEs or spontaneous remission. That a supernatural element in moving rocks, especially if there as a researched explanation, can mean that moving rocks is not a hill for theist think to die on. The sun standing still or the claim of resurrection, on the other hand, might be.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

I reckon 'theistic thinking'(and cult - think) is a Thing, just as rational, logical, critical and indeed scientific thinking is a thing, or a method. Succinctly, one starts with the evidence and builds conclusions from it.

Theist (and cult) thinking in my experience, starts with the conclusion and fiddles the evidence to fit it. To take these moving rocks as an example. A puzzle. The materialist view suggests there is a natural cause but what is not known.

The theistic or supernatural type of thinking argues there must be some supernatural agency because 'science can't explain it'.

I am a theist. 1213 is a theist.

Neither one of us argued for that.

So how can you call your description "theistic thinking"?


Peace again.

Another thing I am aware of is 'choose your battles'. Aside from individuals like you or 1213, others might accept unknown natural explanations for some puzzles, or they may insist on a supernatural element, like in NDEs or spontaneous remission. That a supernatural element in moving rocks, especially if there as a researched explanation, can mean that moving rocks is not a hill for theist think to die on. The sun standing still or the claim of resurrection, on the other hand, might be.

Transponder. What is the point in what you just said? I'm pushing because regardless of the evidence in front of you, you're still pushing for this invention called "theistic thinking."

If a theist does not think there must be a supernatural agency behind something just because science can't explain it (yet), how can you insist upon the term 'theistic thinking?"



Because I'll tell you what that looks like to me (other than prejudice against an entire group of people). It looks like some people - claiming to be rational thinkers - are sticking to their guns despite any evidence to the contrary. In other words, they are doing the very thing they are accusing others of doing: ignoring the evidence in order to maintain their belief in something.

Just sayin'

Peace again to you.

[TRANSPONDER]

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

I reckon 'theistic thinking'(and cult - think) is a Thing, just as rational, logical, critical and indeed scientific thinking is a thing, or a method. Succinctly, one starts with the evidence and builds conclusions from it.

Theist (and cult) thinking in my experience, starts with the conclusion and fiddles the evidence to fit it. To take these moving rocks as an example. A puzzle. The materialist view suggests there is a natural cause but what is not known.

The theistic or supernatural type of thinking argues there must be some supernatural agency because 'science can't explain it'.

I am a theist. 1213 is a theist.

Neither one of us argued for that.

So how can you call your description "theistic thinking"?


Peace again.

Another thing I am aware of is 'choose your battles'. Aside from individuals like you or 1213, others might accept unknown natural explanations for some puzzles, or they may insist on a supernatural element, like in NDEs or spontaneous remission. That a supernatural element in moving rocks, especially if there as a researched explanation, can mean that moving rocks is not a hill for theist think to die on. The sun standing still or the claim of resurrection, on the other hand, might be.

Transponder. What is the point in what you just said? I'm pushing because regardless of the evidence in front of you, you're still pushing for this invention called "theistic thinking."

If a theist does not think there must be a supernatural agency behind something just because science can't explain it (yet), how can you insist upon the term 'theistic thinking?"



Because I'll tell you what that looks like to me (other than prejudice against an entire group of people). It looks like some people - claiming to be rational thinkers - are sticking to their guns despite any evidence to the contrary. In other words, they are doing the very thing they are accusing others of doing: ignoring the evidence in order to maintain their belief in something.

Just sayin'

Peace again to you.

Because in my experience (from before the 80's) I've been familiar with faithbased thinking, trying to tailor the evidence to fit that belief.

Passing over the finger pointing of bias or stubbornness on my part, this is what I experience all the time in debate and discussion. Sure there are times when Theists can use rational and science based thinking when it is not a matter in which they have invested Faith. But when they HAVE invested faith, then theistic faithbased thinking is what I get. It a mode of thinking they do. It isn't about you or 1213 personally but a general observation on faithbased thinking., so you and he not doing it this time (it was not a hill to die on) is not evidence of an exception that disproves the Rule You know better than 'I didn't do it this time, so none of us do it anytime'.

Bible critics do too, when it's a Thing they feel strongly about (like Q document, Luke copying Matthew or Mark being the synoptic original).

[tam]

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

I reckon 'theistic thinking'(and cult - think) is a Thing, just as rational, logical, critical and indeed scientific thinking is a thing, or a method. Succinctly, one starts with the evidence and builds conclusions from it.

Theist (and cult) thinking in my experience, starts with the conclusion and fiddles the evidence to fit it. To take these moving rocks as an example. A puzzle. The materialist view suggests there is a natural cause but what is not known.

The theistic or supernatural type of thinking argues there must be some supernatural agency because 'science can't explain it'.

I am a theist. 1213 is a theist.

Neither one of us argued for that.

So how can you call your description "theistic thinking"?


Peace again.

Another thing I am aware of is 'choose your battles'. Aside from individuals like you or 1213, others might accept unknown natural explanations for some puzzles, or they may insist on a supernatural element, like in NDEs or spontaneous remission. That a supernatural element in moving rocks, especially if there as a researched explanation, can mean that moving rocks is not a hill for theist think to die on. The sun standing still or the claim of resurrection, on the other hand, might be.

Transponder. What is the point in what you just said? I'm pushing because regardless of the evidence in front of you, you're still pushing for this invention called "theistic thinking."

If a theist does not think there must be a supernatural agency behind something just because science can't explain it (yet), how can you insist upon the term 'theistic thinking?"



Because I'll tell you what that looks like to me (other than prejudice against an entire group of people). It looks like some people - claiming to be rational thinkers - are sticking to their guns despite any evidence to the contrary. In other words, they are doing the very thing they are accusing others of doing: ignoring the evidence in order to maintain their belief in something.

Just sayin'

Peace again to you.

Because in my experience (from before the 80's) I've been familiar with faithbased thinking, trying to tailor the evidence to fit that belief.

And I never said that kind of thinking never happened. Only that it happens with people from all walks of life (including atheists). Surely you know that.

How then can it be 'theistic thinking' if it occurs with atheists as well?

Passing over the finger pointing of bias or stubbornness on my part,

Isn't that what this thread is? Finger-pointing at theists - claiming fault with their thinking? If you (general you) don't want your own fingers pointed right back at you, then don't do the same thing you are accusing others of doing.

this is what I experience all the time in debate and discussion. Sure there are times when Theists can use rational and science based thinking when it is not a matter in which they have invested Faith. But when they HAVE invested faith, then theistic faithbased thinking is what I get. It a mode of thinking they do. It isn't about you or 1213 personally but a general observation on faithbased thinking., so you and he not doing it this time (it was not a hill to die on) is not evidence of an exception that disproves the Rule You know better than 'I didn't do it this time, so none of us do it anytime'.

I never said 'none of us do it anytime'. I said ALL of us (theist and non-theist alike) do it sometime.

This conversation isn't a hill to die on either, but if this thread was supposed to be enough to signal that theists have bad thinking, then the evidence of theists on this thread NOT thinking that way should be enough to at least cause people on this thread to consider that there might be something ELSE at play; that their conclusions are wrong.

Bible critics do too, when it's a Thing they feel strongly about (like Q document, Luke copying Matthew or Mark being the synoptic original).

Therefore:

If everyone (theist and non-theist alike) does it at some point or another, how can you label it "theistic thinking" or "faith-based thinking"?


The answer to the question is that you can't, but it does not appear that anyone is willing to own up to that, so I will leave it with you all to justify it or not, as you choose.


Peace still to you.