Natural phenomenon such as rain, storm, earthquake, flood, diseases... are mysteries to the primitive men they attributed to the works of deities. These are later solved as mans knowledge and understanding of the universe increases.

In this contemporary age, more sophisticated questions have emerged; existence, origin of the universe, and questions with answers beyond the reach of our current knowledge. These phenomenon are also attributed to the works of deities.

Some scientists back then, as well as some scientists today, invoke deities at the boundaries of their ignorance.

Who created the universe? why is the universe fined tuned? And other unsolved mysteries. Hardly would you mention the disbelief in theism without facing these questions.

One thing common here is entertainment of ignorance with the idea of a higher power and appealing to a higher power only when staring into the ocean of ignorance.

Where the mysteries are unraveled and they feel certain about the explanations, then a deity hardly gets a mention.

Here is my questions
1- Is God an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on with our discoveries?

2- Do god only serve as a placeholder for the things yet unknown ?

It is wise for all to trust in the wisdom of GOD, the Word - and not lean on our own limited understanding, or that of others. (Proverbs 3:5-6)

"Because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like [a]corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things." - Romans 1:21-23

"For it is written:

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.”

Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the [a]disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe." - 1 Corinthians 1:19-21

xproducer:
It is wise for all to trust in the wisdom of GOD, the Word - and not lean on our own limited understanding, or that of others. (Proverbs 3:5-6)

"Because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like [a]corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things." - Romans 1:21-23

"For it is written:

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.”

Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the [a]disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe." - 1 Corinthians 1:19-21

So some primitive men wrote a book that convinced you that there's an invisible man living in the sky and has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money!

And you want sane humans to follow and belief in your delusion?

Reality11:


So some primitive men wrote a book that convinced you that there's an invisible man living in the sky and has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money!

And you want sane humans to follow and belief in your delusion?

-----

Friend, they were far from primitive. Prophecies in the Holy Bible come to pass precisely as GOD gave it to these men. (An example is the prophet Isaiah prophesying about the birth and coming of The Lord Jesus Christ, approx. 700 years prior - Isaiah 9:6, etc). - "for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." - 2 Peter 1:21

With regard to human beings and the message of the holy Gospel - think about it this way, and I am simply analogizing the best as is humanly possible. There is one GOD, the Creator of all things, natural and super-natural, man included. Man/woman (Adam & Eve), with free will, was/were tempted by the adversary, they failed. Prior to said event, God had kindly, yet seriously warned man about the only exception/rule - "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." - Genesis 2:17 (also see Romans 6:23)

Adam/man disobeyed - and consequently he died - apparently not physically at that moment because he lived for hundreds of years... but he and she died spiritually. All humanity, stemming from them are born physically alive, but spiritually dead. Humanity was completely lost, and without hope of being re-connected to the living GOD.

That is why GOD, in the Person of the Son, the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ - willingly sacrificed Himself to restore many unto GOD/Himself... to make us alive again. - "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive." - 1 Corinthians 15:22

"And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day." - John 6:40

This is the good news, the core message of the Holy Bible.

Give yourself a chance my friend... read the Bible from cover to cover. Apparently we do not grasp all there is to grasp without God's help... but read, and believe.
=====

"...“Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven." - Matthew 18:3

"But He gives more grace. Therefore He says: “God resists the proud, But gives grace to the humble.” - James 4:6

Reality11:
Natural phenomenon such as rain, storm, earthquake, flood, diseases... are mysteries to the primitive men they attributed to the works of deities. These are later solved as mans knowledge and understanding of the universe increases.

Can you pick one of the listed "natural phenomena" and describe how it has been "solved".

xproducer:

-----

Friend, they were far from primitive. Prophecies in the Holy Bible come to pass precisely as GOD gave it to these men. (An example is the prophet Isaiah prophesying about the birth and coming of The Lord Jesus Christ, approx. 700 years prior - Isaiah 9:6, etc). - "for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." - 2 Peter 1:21

With regard to human beings and the message of the holy Gospel - think about it this way, and I am simply analogizing the best as is humanly possible. There is one GOD, the Creator of all things, natural and super-natural, man included. Man/woman (Adam & Eve), with free will, was/were tempted by the adversary, they failed. Prior to said event, God had kindly, yet seriously warned man about the only exception/rule - "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." - Genesis 2:17 (also see Romans 6:23)

Adam/man disobeyed - and consequently he died - apparently not physically at that moment because he lived for hundreds of years... but he and she died spiritually. All humanity, stemming from them are born physically alive, but spiritually dead. Humanity was completely lost, and without hope of being re-connected to the living GOD.

That is why GOD, in the Person of the Son, the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ - willingly sacrificed Himself to restore many unto GOD/Himself... to make us alive again. - "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive." - 1 Corinthians 15:22

"And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day." - John 6:40

This is the good news, the core message of the Holy Bible.

Give yourself a chance my friend... read the Bible from cover to cover. Apparently we do not grasp all there is to grasp without God's help... but read, and believe.
=====

"...“Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven." - Matthew 18:3

"But He gives more grace. Therefore He says: “God resists the proud, But gives grace to the humble.” - James 4:6

still quoting from the manual some primitive guys gave you ?

sinequanon:


Can you pick one of the listed "natural phenomena" and describe how it has been "solved".

Earthquake, flooding, diseases...

Were once thought to be caused when some deities are provoked, but now we don't attribute these to them

Reality11:


Earthquake, flooding, diseases...

Were once thought to be caused by when some deities are provoke but now we don't attribute these to them

So, "...'we' don't attribute these to them..." means "solved"?

uh-oh, I've got a feeling this is going to be a whole waste of my time.

sinequanon:


So, "...'we' don't attribute these to them..." means "solved"?

uh-oh, I've got a feeling this is going to be a whole waste of my time.

We has unravel the mechanism behind them, they are natural procedures and not some kind of phenomenon controlled by sky supermen with magical powers.

Now we no longer incorporate god for its occurrence.

Reality11:


We...

Which part did you "unravel"?

Reality11:
...has...

"we has"?

I am guessing that you wanted to say who, but then went for the vague "we", and forgot to change the conjugation.

Reality11:
...unravel the mechanism behind them, they are natural procedures and not some kind of phenomenon controlled by sky supermen with magical powers.

Now we no longer incorporate god for its occurrence.

Let us take "rain".

Exactly how do you know or tell the mechanism has been "unraveled". Let's start there.

sinequanon:


Which part did you "unravel"?



"we has"?

I am guessing that you wanted to say who, but then went for the vague "we", and forgot to change the conjugation.



Let us take "rain".

Exactly how do you know or tell the mechanism has been "unraveled". Let's start there.

Wow, serious The mechanism behind rain?
Water cycle go and read on it.

Reality11:


Wow, serious The mechanism behind rain?
Water cycle go and read on it.

So, the limit of your understanding is "water cycle".

OK, now tell us HOW you know or can tell that "wow, water cycle, go and read on it" has unraveled "the mechanism behind rain".

sinequanon:


So, the limit of your understanding is "water cycle".

OK, now tell us HOW you know or can tell that "wow, water cycle, go and read on it" has unraveled "the mechanism behind rain".

what is your point?

hopefulLandlord:


what is your point?

Your belief that "the mechanism of rain has been unraveled" is based on your FAITH in something very vague.

You have been unable to explain where your conviction is coming from, or why your conviction is any better than that of someone who believes rain is a deity getting angry, or the result of a rain dance.

Read your replies. They are all evasive.

(ha ha! You again. I've just realized...)

sinequanon:


Your belief that "the mechanism of rain has been unraveled" is based on your FAITH in something very vague.

You have been unable to explain where your conviction is coming from, or why your conviction is any better than that of someone who believes rain is a deity getting angry, or the result of a rain dance.

Read your replies. They are all evasive.

(ha ha! You again. I've just realized...)

But why did you pick rain? you went for the low hanging one which you feel the OP might be unable to explain on his own, clever

why not try that of diseases? that evens the playing field and I think OP can easily defend that and counter the counterarguments you might bring forth

hopefulLandlord:


But why did you pick rain? you went for the low hanging one which you feel the OP might be unable to explain on his own, clever

why not try that of diseases? that evens the playing field and I think OP can easily defend that and counter the counterarguments you might bring forth

(Actually, I thought rain was the simplest! That is why I chose it. But I am happy to let the OP choose whichever of the natural phenomena he/she listed.)

If the OP can't explain it, how can he believe it? What is the belief based on? He should only have included those things he can explain.

sinequanon:


(Actually, I thought rain was the simplest! That is why I chose it. But I am happy to let the OP choose whichever of the natural phenomena he/she listed.)

If the OP can't explain it, how can he believe it? What is the belief based on? He should only have included those things he can explain.

OP was most likely speaking generally of the increase in knowledge of humanity as a whole not his specifically. so the best scientists in meteorological or geographical field might explain it fairly easily and wouldn't attribute things like that to gods like the average person in the deep jungles of Africa would

If you do go with sicknesses I think its pretty obvious that advancements in Medicine has killed many gods over the years and people attribute sicknesses to gods a lot less than they do in the past

hopefulLandlord:


OP was most likely speaking generally of the increase in knowledge of humanity as a whole not his specifically. so the best scientists in meteorological or geographical field might explain it fairly easily and wouldn't attribute things like that to gods like the average person in the deep jungles of Africa would

So, what more is it than faith in scientists? That is what I am asking.

hopefulLandlord:
If you do go with sicknesses I think its pretty obvious that advancements in Medicine has killed many gods over the years and people attribute sicknesses to gods a lot less than they do in the past

"Killed many gods" is rhetorical. We have to be precise. Are you suggesting that "truth" is a consensus of every tom, dick and harry?

sinequanon:


So, what more is it than faith in scientists? That is what I am asking.

Trust in scientific methods, I don't want a situation where faith gets used in an equivocating or false equivalence manner

"Killed many gods" is rhetorical. We have to be precise. Are you suggesting that "truth" is a consensus of every tom, dick and harry?

Truth is beside the point though or we might descend into solipsism

the point is that sicknesses at some point were attributed to the divine or supernatural entities and even till today there are people that still attribute certain sicknesses to divine powers

whether they're right or the position they held was the truth is beside the point here

hopefulLandlord:

Trust in scientific methods, I don't want a situation where faith gets used in an equivocating or false equivalence manner

Unless you use the "scientific methods" personally, your belief is based on faith in scientists and humanity.

You would also have to understand the scientific method, be able to explain how it is being applied, how the application would explain the natural phenomenon in question, and how you assess the validity of the application or model.

hopefulLandlord:
Truth is beside the point though or we might descend into solipsism

the point is that sicknesses at some point were attributed to the divine or supernatural entities and even till today there are people that still attribute certain sicknesses to divine powers

whether they're right or the position they held was the truth is beside the point here

So your point is that opinions have shifted. So what?

sinequanon:


Unless you use the "scientific methods" personally, your belief is based on faith in scientists and humanity.

OP must be using it in his own field if it involves empiricism

scientific methods are open to everyone and everyone gets the same results if they do the same thing. its open to corrections and modifications. there's also peer review to prevent someone lording it over science

You would also have to understand the scientific method, be able to explain how it is being applied, how the application would explain the natural phenomenon in question, and how you assess the validity of the application or model.

I (want to) believe OP understands scientific methods or at least the rudimentary forms of it

So your point is that opinions have shifted. So what?

The shift usually favour the non "god is behind it" view and that's (probably) OP's point

hopefulLandlord:

OP must be using it in his own field if it involves empiricism

I am not after guesswork about the OP.

I have asked the OP specific questions, which he should be able to answer if his belief is based on "scientific method".

hopefulLandlord:
scientific methods are open to everyone and everyone gets the same results if they do the same thing.

You are repeating layers of mantra that you may not have bothered to scrutinize.

First of all, you would have to jump through so many hoops to "qualify" to be anywhere near testing many modern scientific theories, that calling the field "open" is misleading and bordering on the ridiculous. If you did "qualify", you would be placed to test only a narrow subset of theories, most likely only in one particular field. It is more accurate to say that modern science is a closed activity.

Secondly, it is explicitly understood in physics (specifically from quantum theory) that doing the "same thing" does NOT lead to the "same outcome".

hopefulLandlord:
its open to corrections and modifications. there's also peer review to prevent someone lording it over science

The normal spiel. Peer review also provides the infrastructure for cartels. It creates a hierarchy which puts power into the hands of relatively few individuals in the multitude of fields and topics that comprise "science".

hopefulLandlord:
I (want to) believe OP understands scientific methods or at least the rudimentary forms of it
The shift usually favour the non "god is behind it" view and that's (probably) OP's point

The point was to explain what constitutes natural phenomena like rain being "solved". What you have written above, and shifting public opinion, explains nothing about that.

sinequanon:


I am not after guesswork about the OP.

I have asked the OP specific questions, which he should be able to answer if his belief is based on "scientific method".

TBF it seems I've hijacked the discussion, I think I'd leave you two to it

You are repeating layers of mantra that you may not have bothered to scrutinize.

First of all, you would have to jump through so many hoops to "qualify" to be anywhere near testing many modern scientific theories, that calling the field "open" is misleading and bordering on the ridiculous. If you did "qualify", you would be placed to test only a narrow subset of theories, most likely only in one particular field. It is more accurate to say that modern science is a closed activity.

What are those hoops you're talking about? last I checked I can access most scientific papers straight from the internet

Secondly, it is explicitly understood in physics (specifically from quantum theory) that doing the "same thing" does NOT lead to the "same outcome".

Then it gets modified

science never claimed to have attained perfection but it's as close to perfection as we can get
Scientists in Saudi Arabia, Utah and Venezuela have the same theories. We don't have South African science and Chinese science. Scientific theories are correct everywhere.

science is still the best way.

The normal spiel. Peer review also provides the infrastructure for cartels. It creates a hierarchy which puts power into the hands of relatively few individuals in the multitude of fields and topics that comprise "science".

At the end of it all the true science finds a way and its a hell of a lot better than goddidit

The point was to explain what constitutes natural phenomena like rain being "solved". What you have written above, and shifting public opinion, explains nothing about that.

You still went back to rain, clever

Everything is opinion or we might descend into solipsism, science has changed and shifted opinions of the " goddidit" variety and that's the point

hopefulLandlord:
What are those hoops you're talking about? last I checked I can access most scientific papers straight from the internet

I suggest that you go back and read carefully, because you are losing track of our discussion. I said, "unless you use the 'scientific methods' personally, your belief is based on faith in scientists and humanity." You replied, "scientific methods are open to everyone and everyone gets the same results if they do the same thing".

Access to a scientific paper is not personal application of scientific method. It is access to a report about what someone else says they did.

As I said, all you have is FAITH in the method, the system and the people in the system, to report honestly and competently. So do religious folk reading their bible.

It is generally highly impractical for you to be able to check the facts. You can only read reports (papers). That is not checking the facts.

hopefulLandlord:
...but it's as close to perfection as we can get

There's that "we" again. You almost sound as if you have been programmed. What you have written is pure unsubstantiated mantra.

hopefulLandlord:
Scientists in Saudi Arabia, Utah and Venezuela have the same theories. We don't have South African science and Chinese science. Scientific theories are correct everywhere.

Oh dear! I recognize all this stuff you are repeating without really thinking about it.

Scientific theories are being disputed all over the place.

You are repeating dumbed down soundbites. Scientific theories can be "current" or "predominant". "Correct" is the dumbed down term, which has led you to believe in a non-existent uniformity of scientific opinion.

hopefulLandlord:
science is still the best way...

Forgive me if I skip the mantra parts of you posts, in future. Anyone can keep repeating that their way is the best way. it's called religion.

hopefulLandlord:
Everything is opinion or we might descend into solipsism, science has changed and shifted opinions of the " goddidit" variety and that's the point

The reverse is also true. So you have no point.

And you have missed the point, which was explaining in what way natural phenomenon, e.g "rain", has been "solved".

Reality11:
Natural phenomenon such as rain, storm, earthquake, flood, diseases... are mysteries to the primitive men they attributed to the works of deities. These are later solved as mans knowledge and understanding of the universe increases.

OK, it appears that the OP was not able to go much further than simply repeating what he has been told, and has abandoned the thread.

I will proceed without him/her.

Primitive man was able to predict the weather. They knew of the tides and seasons. the cycles of the Moon and the Sun. They knew when to plant their crops in relation to the seasons, when the rains were due, etc. In fact, they knew about the importance of forest for the rivers. (More recently, my own great grandparents knew that clearing forest would cause the rivers to dry up, long before science was beginning to acknowledge the connection.)

Scientists are fond of inventing and exaggerating the ignorance of "primitive" man, who could probably predict the imminent weather better than the average person today.

Have we "unraveled the mechanism of rain" today? The performance of our weather forecasts show that we are far from it. Even with our "superior" satellite equipment, capable of tracking weather systems across the globe, scientists still frequently get weather predictions wrong. Right now, in the UK, the weather forecasts are very hit and miss. Most correct predictions are a result of early spotting of existing weather systems,and tracking their movement, rather than a result of anticipating their formation using science.

So, in regards to rain, humans are doing much of what they have always done. Forecasts of more than a few hours can be very unreliable. So the claim that we have unraveled the mechanism of "rain" is based on myth and spin.

We could look at any of the other topics the OP mentioned, such as advancement in medicine. It is a similar story. But you need at least a basic understanding of the issues to be able to spot all the spin coming from the science lobby.

I am not religious, myself, but that is no reason to spin and exaggerate scientific "accomplishments".

sinequanon:


OK, it appears that the OP was not able to go much further than simply repeating what he has been told, and has abandoned the thread.

I will proceed without him/her.

Primitive man was able to predict the weather. They knew of the tides and seasons. the cycles of the Moon and the Sun. They knew when to plant their crops in relation to the seasons, when the rains were due, etc. In fact, they knew about the importance of forest for the rivers. (More recently, my own great grandparents knew that clearing forest would cause the rivers to dry up, long before science was beginning to acknowledge the connection.)

Scientists are fond of inventing and exaggerating the ignorance of "primitive" man, who could probably predict the imminent weather better than the average person today.

Have we "unraveled the mechanism of rain" today? The performance of our weather forecasts show that we are far from it. Even with our "superior" satellite equipment, capable of tracking weather systems across the globe, scientists still frequently get weather predictions wrong. Right now, in the UK, the weather forecasts are very hit and miss. Most correct predictions are a result of early spotting of existing weather systems,and tracking their movement, rather than a result of anticipating their formation using science.

So, in regards to rain, humans are doing much of what they have always done. Forecasts of more than a few hours can be very unreliable. So the claim that we have unraveled the mechanism of "rain" is based on myth and spin.

We could look at any of the other topics the OP mentioned, such as advancement in medicine. It is a similar story. But you need at least a basic understanding of the issues to be able to spot all the spin coming from the science lobby.

I am not religious, myself, but that is no reason to spin and exaggerate scientific "accomplishments".

Am not talking about predicting rain or weather forecast
But the Procedure and mechanisms on how water evaporates from the surface of the earth, rises into the atmosphere, cools and condenses into rain or snow in clouds, and falls again to the surface as precipitation.

Q'uq'umatz, a mayan deity of wind and rain.

Tlaloc was a member of the pantheon of gods in Aztec religion. A supreme god of the rain, Tlaloc was also a god of earthly fertility and of water.

Dodola is a Slavic goddess of rain, and the wife of the supreme god Perun who is the god of thunder.

Jok, deity from a tribe in Uganda which control rain. Black goats were to be sacrificed to him when rain was needed.

Nenaunir, from a tribe in Zimbabwe is an Evil Storm God who was linked to the rainbow. Resided in the clouds and was a dreaded spirit.

Nyamia Ama Senegal God of storms, rain and lightning. A sky god.

And many more from different cultures, tribes and regions of the world.

These gods are beseech, venerated, rituals and acrifice are made whenever there is need to. Some thought thunder was the sound of gods fighting, heavey storm when gods are angry, or sacrifice is needed by gods when rain failed.

This has nothing to do with the original contex which rainfall operate.

The explanations were tied to the works of deities, if they new this they wouldn't have incorporate gods into it.

I abscond ?
Please i have life outside nairaland

Reality11:




Here is my questions
1- Is God an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on with our discoveries?

The question is a loaded question fallacy. It assumes base on ignorance that God only serves to stand in the gap of our ignorance as wel that God is very small and indeed doomed to insignificance. In my own opinion, the person asking this question is limited in the definition of what God is all about.

Do god only serve as a placeholder for the things yet unknown ?

This statement characterizes the God as “the god of the gaps.” In response to such arguments, which equate the unknown with the unknowable, "Dietrich Bonhoeffer" wrote, while imprisoned by the Nazi’s: “[H]ow wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know.

vaxx:
The question is a loaded question fallacy. It assumes base on ignorance that God only serves to stand in the gap of our ignorance as wel that God is very small and indeed doomed to insignificance. In my own opinion, the person asking this question is limited in the definition of what God is all about.
This statement characterizes the God as “the god of the gaps.” In response to such arguments, which equate the unknown with the unknowable, "Dietrich Bonhoeffer" wrote, while imprisoned by the Nazi’s: “[H]ow wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know.

Please what is god?

Reality11:


Am not talking about predicting rain or weather forecast

The point is that you should be!

You invoke science, which claims to "know" that it has "solved" or "unraveled" the mechanism of a phenomenon by using a model of the mechanism to make predictions.

I asked you in an earlier post.

sinequanon:
OK, now tell us HOW you know or can tell that "wow, water cycle, go and read on it" has unraveled "the mechanism behind rain".

I was expecting anyone who knows the basics of science to CLAIM that the mechanism has been modeled and TESTED, (i.e predictions made using the model, and seen to be overwhelmingly correct.)

OK, at least you have now described a model in better detail than just saying "water cycle".

Reality11:
But the Procedure and mechanisms on how water evaporates from the surface of the earth, rises into the atmosphere, cools and condenses into rain or snow in clouds, and falls again to the surface as precipitation.

You have NOT explained why so many predictions using this mechanism fail.

(And it is a good job for you that I picked "rain" as an example, because the failure rate with "earthquake" or "disease" is more).

All you have done is come up with an alternative explanation to "deity" WITHOUT EXPLAINING WHY YOU THINK YOUR NEW EXPLANATION IS BETTER. What you have done so far is no different from a religious person picking his faith over other faiths. In this case, your gods are the books and scientists you are quoting without questioning.

Here is a link to the BBC's (British Broadcasting Corporation) own assessment of its rainfall prediction performance.

Even its own massaged figures don't go above 60 PER CENT, and bobble around 50 PER CENT.

Sunshine figures are EVEN WORSE.

This means that when they forecast rain or sunshine, it is almost as likely that there will be no rain or sunshine!

Notice the wording of the excuse for rainfall:

It is difficult to forecast rainfall at a pinpoint location, therefore the target for this element is not as high as for others. For example, one location may have rain and a location a mile away may remain dry.

Notice that this is talking about the TARGET, i.e the bar has been lowered, and they are not required to perform as well as, say, for temperature predictions. The point is the ETS (Equitable Threat Score) is corrected for the randomness -- that is why it is called equitable. If anything, it biases towards an overestimate of the performance. See this paper.

As a result, the random hits are overestimated and the ETS becomes biased and not indicative of model skills.

But the BBC does not mention that the bias from its "excuse" is in their favour. A casual reader may think that it explains the poor results!