Author

Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 334. (Read 845654 times)

legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
March 09, 2015, 03:31:51 AM

Well i dont know what you mean that evolution includes inanimate materials becoming alive, evolution is not the theory of HOW LIFE WAS FORMED IN THE BEGINING, it is exactly what you said, evolution is change. I let you read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Evolution is anything but random.

From http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2aOriginoflife.shtml:
Quote
When did life originate?
Evidence suggests that life first evolved around 3.5 billion years ago. This evidence takes the form of microfossils (fossils too small to be seen without the aid of a microscope) and ancient rock structures in South Africa and Australia called stromatolites. Stromatolites are produced by microbes (mainly photosynthesizing cyanobacteria) that form thin microbial films which trap mud; over time, layers of these mud/microbe mats can build up into a layered rock structure — the stromatolite.

That sure sounds to me that life came from non-life. the word "inanimate" means not alive.

Now, I don't blame you evolutionists. If I believed that there wasn't any God, and if some joker called "BADecker" came along and proved to me that the very sequence of happenings that I had been using to suggest that there couldn't be any God, was the exact thing that was showing that God absolutely had to exist, I'd be upset, too, and would want to get off track of the idea.

Smiley
hero member
Activity: 1064
Merit: 505
March 09, 2015, 03:04:57 AM
Still waiting for the scientific proof. After all the thred is called that. Almost 200 pages with ribbish? Where is the proof?

The problem with the idea of proof is, people are built in ways that make them so extremely stubborn that millions of pieces of evidence could jump right up and bite them in the left eye, and that still wouldn't be proof for them.

Smiley

Your not exempt from that as well you know.


Exactly, like it happens with evolution?? Mr BAdecker?? There are thousands of proofs of evolution yet seems like you are so extremely stubborn to keep believing the contrary

Here is the evolutionist's deception.

The term or process called "evolution," includes inanimate materials becoming alive. There is absolutely no evidence for such.

If Evolution included only change, it bight be absolutely correct.

Many people include the idea of pure randomness in the idea of evolution. There is absolutely no evidence for pure randomness. All that we see operates by cause and effect, action and reaction.

As I have stated in other posts, consider billiards, the game of pool. If a good pool player hits a ball that hits another ball that hits a third ball that hits a fourth ball that hits a fifth ball that knocks a sixth ball into a predetermined pocket... such a thing might be unheard of. If it has been done, it is an extremely rare happening.

So, take a look at the Big Bang. The BB blast (if it existed) created cause and effect that was so extremely controlled that it produced all kinds of cause and effect actions over billions of years, and came up with the complexity of universal physics, life and and thought in humankind. It would be quadrillions of times easier for the inventor of billiards (whoever and whenever he might have lived) to have, with his first hit of a ball, knocked all the billiard balls that have ever existed in all the billiard games that have ever existed into predetermined pockets.

Evolution is an utter stupidity when you apply to the term everything that is being applied. If you are only talking about change, then call it change, not evolution. Or explain it as change, not as the impossible thing that it is being explained as.

Smiley

Well i dont know what you mean that evolution includes inanimate materials becoming alive, evolution is not the theory of HOW LIFE WAS FORMED IN THE BEGINING, it is exactly what you said, evolution is change. I let you read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Evolution is anything but random.
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
March 09, 2015, 02:59:45 AM
Still waiting for the scientific proof. After all the thred is called that. Almost 200 pages with ribbish? Where is the proof?

The problem with the idea of proof is, people are built in ways that make them so extremely stubborn that millions of pieces of evidence could jump right up and bite them in the left eye, and that still wouldn't be proof for them.

Smiley

Your not exempt from that as well you know.


Exactly, like it happens with evolution?? Mr BAdecker?? There are thousands of proofs of evolution yet seems like you are so extremely stubborn to keep believing the contrary

Here is the evolutionist's deception.

The term or process called "evolution," includes inanimate materials becoming alive. There is absolutely no evidence for such.

If Evolution included only change, it bight be absolutely correct.

Many people include the idea of pure randomness in the idea of evolution. There is absolutely no evidence for pure randomness. All that we see operates by cause and effect, action and reaction.

As I have stated in other posts, consider billiards, the game of pool. If a good pool player hits a ball that hits another ball that hits a third ball that hits a fourth ball that hits a fifth ball that knocks a sixth ball into a predetermined pocket... such a thing might be unheard of. If it has been done, it is an extremely rare happening.

So, take a look at the Big Bang. The BB blast (if it existed) created cause and effect that was so extremely controlled that it produced all kinds of cause and effect actions over billions of years, and came up with the complexity of universal physics, life and and thought in humankind. It would be quadrillions of times easier for the inventor of billiards (whoever and whenever he might have lived) to have, with his first hit of a ball, knocked all the billiard balls that have ever existed in all the billiard games that have ever existed into predetermined pockets.

Evolution is an utter stupidity when you apply to the term everything that is being applied. If you are only talking about change, then call it change, not evolution. Or explain it as change, not as the impossible thing that it is being explained as.

Smiley

EDIT: If the Big Bang and Evolution created something like human thought through its process of cause and effect, then call it what it is... God.
legendary
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1016
March 09, 2015, 02:58:34 AM
Still waiting for the scientific proof. After all the thred is called that. Almost 200 pages with ribbish? Where is the proof?

The problem with the idea of proof is, people are built in ways that make them so extremely stubborn that millions of pieces of evidence could jump right up and bite them in the left eye, and that still wouldn't be proof for them.

Smiley

Your not exempt from that as well you know.


Exactly, like it happens with evolution?? Mr BAdecker?? There are thousands of proofs of evolution yet seems like you are so extremely stubborn to keep believing the contrary

It's quite puzzling why BADdecker gets all aerated about evolution. There's still room for his god.
God could of sparked life in the beginning, and evolution could of taken over from there.
hero member
Activity: 1064
Merit: 505
March 09, 2015, 12:57:31 AM
Still waiting for the scientific proof. After all the thred is called that. Almost 200 pages with ribbish? Where is the proof?

The problem with the idea of proof is, people are built in ways that make them so extremely stubborn that millions of pieces of evidence could jump right up and bite them in the left eye, and that still wouldn't be proof for them.

Smiley

Your not exempt from that as well you know.


Exactly, like it happens with evolution?? Mr BAdecker?? There are thousands of proofs of evolution yet seems like you are so extremely stubborn to keep believing the contrary
legendary
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1016
March 09, 2015, 12:28:55 AM
Still waiting for the scientific proof. After all the thred is called that. Almost 200 pages with ribbish? Where is the proof?

The problem with the idea of proof is, people are built in ways that make them so extremely stubborn that millions of pieces of evidence could jump right up and bite them in the left eye, and that still wouldn't be proof for them.

Smiley

Your not exempt from that as well you know.
hero member
Activity: 1064
Merit: 505
March 08, 2015, 11:53:35 PM
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?



God, in the offer of freedom, has allowed people to do evil as well as good. - That means god is not good

God doesn't like the evil because it harms the people who do it. - He obviously does like evil(And he tolerates it, if he didn't there would be no evil), because he continues to let evil room. Did he save any of those 6 million+ jews from getting slaughtered like barn animals by Hitler? No. + many more examples.

God is doing away with the evil, and He is doing away with the ability to do evil any longer. - No he is not, hundreds of thousands of people are murdered yearly.

Because of the tremendous greatness with which He set this universe up, the way He is doing away with evil is to destroy this universe. - So he's going to "destroy" this universe to do away with evil, really, that's your answer?

God is offering the people who want to get out of the evil, the chance to join Him in the new universe He is setting up. - Makes no sense, see XinXan's post, and the very chapter of Revealations itself is regarded as Symolic, not to be taken literally, just like Genesis. I advise you to take theology...

God, in the offer of freedom, is allowing people the opportunity to remain in the evil, by not believing in and accepting Him, so they essentially are destroyed right along with the rest of the evil when He completely dissolves this universe. - Again, see XinXan's post, by God allowing evil, that means he himself is not good.

Where do you want to be? destroyed with the evil? or saved with the good? If you want to be saved with the good, you better start believing in God the right way. Otherwise you are being evil, and will be destroyed with the rest of the evil, as you have asked, by remaining in unbelief regarding God. - Again, see XinXan's post.

Smiley

The purpose of XinXan's questions and the answers are there to illustrate that: God either doesn't exist, isn't "god"(Can't do all things), or he's not a good "god".

There's 3 answers and XinXan described it perfectly.

P.S. None of BADecker's statements made sense, at all.


And with that, so long. There's no further point in discussing this.

I couldnt really understand most of his arguments but here comes this: if heaven really exists and heaven is a place that allows no evil then there is no frewill there and since humans have the potential for evil it would mean that we would be robots in heaven since no human will ever be able to do evil things again and if that is possible why god couldnt do that since the begining?

You have some preconceived notions about God while at the same time you (and science) don't understand some of the basics of the laws of the universe.

My wording, above, isn't exactly individual arguments. They are a sequence. The whole point of it is, God ABSOLUTELY IS preventing the evil. This earth, this life, even this universe is being taken out of existence so that the evil will not only be prevented, but also destroyed. The New Universe that God is making is the place that won't have any evil. God is God. The New Universe will have universal physics laws that are different than these. There will be freedom as well as no ability to do evil. God can do it.

Why doesn't God simply do away with the evil here? Because He built a universe where people are so deeply embedded with part of His nature, at the same time that people themselves spiritually are integrally woven into the laws of the universe in ways way beyond understanding of science at present, that if He simply destroyed the evil, He would have to destroy the people. Rather, God is giving us this short life to allow us the time to decide if we want to continue to be evil, or if we would rather join Him with the good in the New Universe.

God's idea behind making a free universe, where people had the freedom to do evil, was not so that they would do the evil, but so that they would use their freedom to show greater love for Him by NOT doing the evil. If the ability to do evil was not present, there would not be the ability to show the greater love.

The fact that God prepared the way out of the evil through faith in Him and in the salvation that His Son, Jesus, provides, shows that He is saving people from the evil. People, by not accepting the salvation that God provides, or by not accepting that God even exists right in the face of all the evidence to the opposite, show that they would rather remain in the evil.

Smiley

Pretty cool stuff but where is exactly the proof of anything that you said? Oh i will tell you there is not
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
March 08, 2015, 08:01:49 PM
Still waiting for the scientific proof. After all the thred is called that. Almost 200 pages with ribbish? Where is the proof?

The problem with the idea of proof is, people are built in ways that make them so extremely stubborn that millions of pieces of evidence could jump right up and bite them in the left eye, and that still wouldn't be proof for them.

Smiley


Quote from: “Proof by Mathematical Induction.” California State University. sec.: 2. 09 Mar. 235. link=http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~larryc/proofs/proofs.mathinduction.html
The Math Induction Strategy

Mathematical Induction works like this: Suppose you want to prove a theorem in the form "For all integers n greater than equal to a, P(n) is true". P(n) must be an assertion that we wish to be true for all n = a, a+1, ...; like a formula. You first verify the initial step. That is, you must verify that P(a) is true. Next comes the inductive step. Here you must prove "If there is a k, greater than or equal to a, for which P(k) is true, then for this same k, P(k+1) is true."

Since you have verified P(a), it follows from the inductive step that P(a+1) is true, and hence, P(a+2) is true, and hence P(a+3) is true, and so on. In this way the theorem has been proved.

(Red colorization mine.)

“The problem with the idea of proof is” (BADecker) that infinite physical evidence cannot be considered, simultaneously, by a finite physical system.

Yet the qualities of the finite system can strongly suggest that there is an infinite system.

Smiley
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
March 08, 2015, 07:54:13 PM
...

In Genesis, it never says that God created the universe after the "universal war" between the angels and satan/followers. Correct. But the bible is a lot larger than only Genesis. Jesus, Himself, says, "I saw Satan fall from Heaven like lightening." Also, it's clear you've never taken theology(Which all priests are required to do). To be honest, you should just stop talking BADecker. Even the priest at my local church would frown/laugh at what you've written. The Genesis portion of the bible is considered by most biblical historians to be Symbolic, and not literal, especially since back when these chapters were supposedly written, there Were No 24 hour Day Calendars aka The gregorian calendar did not exist yet, which is why "God creating the universe is 6 days" is regarded as Symbolic. "The evening and the morning were the first day." Nothing hard to understand about this except why people want to corrupt the simple understanding of what the Bible says. You and whoever else believes that God created the world in 6 days is an idiot, and truly needs to go back to school. From that you can also see just how much the bible has been edited over the centuries(Genesis was edited), and why most of the things in there are symbolic or simply false. Anyone who limits the ability of God to create a universe in even 1 minute, needs to have his head examined, because he hasn't even started to consider the greatness of God.

Literally every sentence you write makes me feel like you dropped out of school in 3rd grade BADecker. At least research before you come up with bullshit that not even fellow christians would accept. Past Bible scholars didn't have the scientific thinking that we have now. Also, there are many ways to combine the various parts of the Bible to come up with all kinds of ideas. If you would take the time to study the Bible, you would find that I have only scratched the surface of the great amount of knowledge that exists therein.

----------

Take a look at the sequence of creation in Genesis.

1. God creates the Heavens and the Earth - space and material. God was hovering over the waters of the earth (material).

2. God crates light - makes the electromagnetic spectrum along with some of the dimensions that separate the electromagnetic qualities of material from the electromagnetic qualities of energy.

3. God separated the waters on earth. He separated them by making an expanse between them. The expanse He called "sky." - In other words, God separated the materials from which He would make our actual earth, from the materials out of which he would later make the stars.

4. God separated the waters on our Earth (under the expanse of the sky) from the ground (solid material), thereby making dry ground appear. - The waters were a form of thin mud-like substance before God separated the land materials from the water.

5. God made the plants. - Plants were here before the materials (water) He had moved into the sky (expanse) had been turned into the stars. Did the plants need the sun to live? No. The light that God made the first day would be enough to keep them for the short time that it took to make the sun.

6. God made the sun, moon and stars. - In the Revelation, the tail of the dragon (Satan) swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The stars are equated with angels. The Bible scholars mostly agree with this. When did this happen?

7. God made sea creatures and birds.

8. God made land creatures and man.

----------

When man sinned, Satan was already in the earth. He took the form of the serpent.

Jesus saw Satan fall from Heaven like lightening.

The Revelation talks about the war in Heaven between Satan and the archangel, Michael. Satan lost, and was cast to the earth.

In the beginning of the creation story, before the light was created, before the energies were settled in their cosmic and physics form, God says in Genesis chapter 1, verse 2: "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." The word "was" is the same word that means "became."

In other words, there was Heaven and Earth that had been created in the beginning. It was our universe, but in a different "way." It may have had stars and planets. Nobody knows. It DID have the angels. There was a war among the angels in Heaven. Satan and his gang lost the war, the whole creation changed, and God started over rebuilding it in verse 3 with His newly formed light, since even the physics of the previous existence had been turned into mush.

Think about it. See the many things we are missing by not applying the whole Bible to the things that exist and how they came into being.

God is positive. God is against destruction. God renews things. And the next time He will renew "stuff" by making a whole new universe and destroying this one.

Anybody who reads this post, will probably want to say all kinds of things about my comments here. I don't have all the answers. And nobody else does either. There is a lot of "stuff" that is unclear to everyone, but mostly to the people who remain in ignorance intentionally, by not accepting the evidence for God all around them in the universe and nature.

Smiley
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 500
I like boobies
March 08, 2015, 07:18:20 PM
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
Knowledge could but approximate existence.
March 08, 2015, 07:11:30 PM
Still waiting for the scientific proof. After all the thred is called that. Almost 200 pages with ribbish? Where is the proof?

The problem with the idea of proof is, people are built in ways that make them so extremely stubborn that millions of pieces of evidence could jump right up and bite them in the left eye, and that still wouldn't be proof for them.

Smiley


Quote from: “Proof by Mathematical Induction.” California State University. sec.: 2. 09 Mar. 235. link=http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~larryc/proofs/proofs.mathinduction.html
The Math Induction Strategy

Mathematical Induction works like this: Suppose you want to prove a theorem in the form "For all integers n greater than equal to a, P(n) is true". P(n) must be an assertion that we wish to be true for all n = a, a+1, ...; like a formula. You first verify the initial step. That is, you must verify that P(a) is true. Next comes the inductive step. Here you must prove "If there is a k, greater than or equal to a, for which P(k) is true, then for this same k, P(k+1) is true."

Since you have verified P(a), it follows from the inductive step that P(a+1) is true, and hence, P(a+2) is true, and hence P(a+3) is true, and so on. In this way the theorem has been proved.

(Red colorization mine.)

“The problem with the idea of proof is” (BADecker) that infinite physical evidence cannot be considered, simultaneously, by a finite physical system.
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
March 08, 2015, 07:07:35 PM


God doesn't like the evil because it harms the people who do it.


Smiley

If he dosnt like evil, why did he create it?

Just for you...

God didn't create evil. He gave some of the sentient beings He created the freedom to cause evil, so that they could prove their love for God by NOT doing evil. God didn't suggest that they do the evil. He told (and tells) them not to do it.

We are so far away from understanding the greatness of God and His love for us, that we have a difficult time understanding how great a thing it is to not do evil in the face of being able to do evil.

Smiley
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
March 08, 2015, 07:01:04 PM
Still waiting for the scientific proof. After all the thred is called that. Almost 200 pages with ribbish? Where is the proof?

The problem with the idea of proof is, people are built in ways that make them so extremely stubborn that millions of pieces of evidence could jump right up and bite them in the left eye, and that still wouldn't be proof for them.

Smiley
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
March 08, 2015, 06:57:37 PM
Still waiting for the scientific proof. After all the thred is called that. Almost 200 pages with ribbish? Where is the proof?

Agree, this thread is a mess, I wish I had better english to contribute.. what about this post?

I personally dislike term "God" simply because it's connected with religion(s) so I prefer "Creator" or "Designer".. Is it even possible for us to talk about something beyond space and time without any personification? The Signs of God's Existence documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZS1x-6al2pE

I watched it all, here are references for their "proof":

Golden ratio discovered in quantum world: Hidden symmetry observed for the first time in solid state matter:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100107143909.htm

Solid-state physics: Golden ratio seen in a magnet:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7287/full/464362a.html

Is there connection between golden ratio and God? Do we at least know what's consciousness? And what about Noetic sciences?

http://www.noetic.org/about/what-are-noetic-sciences/

Is there even way to proof God's existence?

Here is probably the simplest explanation about what Quantum Mechanics really is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcfQkxwz4Oo. When you finish watching this less-than-two-minutes video, you will see that quantum mechanics can be used to prove anything and to work anything. It can actually be used to prove and work things that are opposite of each other... if you want to work hard enough at making it do so.

Smiley
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
Knowledge could but approximate existence.
March 08, 2015, 06:55:59 PM
[…]

The Geneva Bible was written a long time ago. While its language is similar to ours, it is also different. This is because it is a translation from other languages. If you are interested in reading online more clearly, I would recommend the English Standard Version (ESV), or the New English Standard Version (NESV). You can find these online at http://www.biblegateway.com/ where you can read right online.

Smiley

I recommend the Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament (IHOT) and the Interlinear Greek New Testament (IGNT).
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
March 08, 2015, 06:49:13 PM
If you want to be saved with the good, you better start believing in God the right way. Otherwise you are being evil, and will be destroyed with the rest of the evil, as you have asked, by remaining in unbelief regarding God.

So let's get this straight, you saying people must believe in god or they are automatically labeled as evil?

So someone that believes in god yet still kills people is better than a non-believer that lives a peaceful loving life?

Mmmmmmmmm.....


Quote from: _1599 Geneva Bible_. Ed. Mark Langley. 08 Mar. 235. link=http://studybible.info/Geneva/Galatians%203
Galatians 3

Geneva⁽ⁱ⁾ . . . ²³ But before faith came, we were kept vnder the Law, as vnder a garison, and shut vp vnto that faith, which should afterward be reueiled. ²⁴ Wherefore the Lawe was our scholemaster to bring vs to Christ, that we might be made righteous by faith. ²⁵ But after that faith is come, we are no longer vnder a scholemaster. ²⁶ For ye are al the sonnes of God by faith, in Christ Iesus. ²⁷ For all ye that are baptized into Christ, haue put on Christ. ²⁸ There is neither Iewe nor Grecian: there is neither bonde nor free: there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Iesus. ²⁹ And if ye be Christes, then are ye Abrahams seede, and heires by promise.
(Red colorization mine.)

Exactly!!!

And that is why the whole God thing is nonsense to so many people. They refuse to accept Him by faith, the only real way He can be accepted. This means that they remain in the evil, simply because they don't accept the only way out of the evil, the salvation that God's son, Jesus, provides.

The Geneva Bible was written a long time ago. While its language is similar to ours, it is also different. This is because it is a translation from other languages. If you are interested in reading online more clearly, I would recommend the English Standard Version (ESV), or the New English Standard Version (NESV). You can find these online at http://www.biblegateway.com/ where you can read right online.

Smiley
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
March 08, 2015, 06:40:07 PM
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?



God, in the offer of freedom, has allowed people to do evil as well as good. - That means god is not good

God doesn't like the evil because it harms the people who do it. - He obviously does like evil(And he tolerates it, if he didn't there would be no evil), because he continues to let evil room. Did he save any of those 6 million+ jews from getting slaughtered like barn animals by Hitler? No. + many more examples.

God is doing away with the evil, and He is doing away with the ability to do evil any longer. - No he is not, hundreds of thousands of people are murdered yearly.

Because of the tremendous greatness with which He set this universe up, the way He is doing away with evil is to destroy this universe. - So he's going to "destroy" this universe to do away with evil, really, that's your answer?

God is offering the people who want to get out of the evil, the chance to join Him in the new universe He is setting up. - Makes no sense, see XinXan's post, and the very chapter of Revealations itself is regarded as Symolic, not to be taken literally, just like Genesis. I advise you to take theology...

God, in the offer of freedom, is allowing people the opportunity to remain in the evil, by not believing in and accepting Him, so they essentially are destroyed right along with the rest of the evil when He completely dissolves this universe. - Again, see XinXan's post, by God allowing evil, that means he himself is not good.

Where do you want to be? destroyed with the evil? or saved with the good? If you want to be saved with the good, you better start believing in God the right way. Otherwise you are being evil, and will be destroyed with the rest of the evil, as you have asked, by remaining in unbelief regarding God. - Again, see XinXan's post.

Smiley

The purpose of XinXan's questions and the answers are there to illustrate that: God either doesn't exist, isn't "god"(Can't do all things), or he's not a good "god".

There's 3 answers and XinXan described it perfectly.

P.S. None of BADecker's statements made sense, at all.


And with that, so long. There's no further point in discussing this.

I couldnt really understand most of his arguments but here comes this: if heaven really exists and heaven is a place that allows no evil then there is no frewill there and since humans have the potential for evil it would mean that we would be robots in heaven since no human will ever be able to do evil things again and if that is possible why god couldnt do that since the begining?

You have some preconceived notions about God while at the same time you (and science) don't understand some of the basics of the laws of the universe.

My wording, above, isn't exactly individual arguments. They are a sequence. The whole point of it is, God ABSOLUTELY IS preventing the evil. This earth, this life, even this universe is being taken out of existence so that the evil will not only be prevented, but also destroyed. The New Universe that God is making is the place that won't have any evil. God is God. The New Universe will have universal physics laws that are different than these. There will be freedom as well as no ability to do evil. God can do it.

Why doesn't God simply do away with the evil here? Because He built a universe where people are so deeply embedded with part of His nature, at the same time that people themselves spiritually are integrally woven into the laws of the universe in ways way beyond understanding of science at present, that if He simply destroyed the evil, He would have to destroy the people. Rather, God is giving us this short life to allow us the time to decide if we want to continue to be evil, or if we would rather join Him with the good in the New Universe.

God's idea behind making a free universe, where people had the freedom to do evil, was not so that they would do the evil, but so that they would use their freedom to show greater love for Him by NOT doing the evil. If the ability to do evil was not present, there would not be the ability to show the greater love.

The fact that God prepared the way out of the evil through faith in Him and in the salvation that His Son, Jesus, provides, shows that He is saving people from the evil. People, by not accepting the salvation that God provides, or by not accepting that God even exists right in the face of all the evidence to the opposite, show that they would rather remain in the evil.

Smiley
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
Knowledge could but approximate existence.
March 08, 2015, 06:35:44 PM
If you want to be saved with the good, you better start believing in God the right way. Otherwise you are being evil, and will be destroyed with the rest of the evil, as you have asked, by remaining in unbelief regarding God.

So let's get this straight, you saying people must believe in god or they are automatically labeled as evil?

So someone that believes in god yet still kills people is better than a non-believer that lives a peaceful loving life?

Mmmmmmmmm.....


Quote from: _1599 Geneva Bible_. Ed. Mark Langley. 08 Mar. 235. link=http://studybible.info/Geneva/Galatians%203
Galatians 3

Geneva⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹ O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the trueth, to whome Iesus Christ before was described in your sight, and among you crucified?. . . ²³ But before faith came, we were kept vnder the Law, as vnder a garison, and shut vp vnto that faith, which should afterward be reueiled. ²⁴ Wherefore the Lawe was our scholemaster to bring vs to Christ, that we might be made righteous by faith. ²⁵ But after that faith is come, we are no longer vnder a scholemaster. ²⁶ For ye are al the sonnes of God by faith, in Christ Iesus. ²⁷ For all ye that are baptized into Christ, haue put on Christ. ²⁸ There is neither Iewe nor Grecian: there is neither bonde nor free: there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Iesus. ²⁹ And if ye be Christes, then are ye Abrahams seede, and heires by promise.
(Red colorization mine.)
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
March 08, 2015, 06:28:29 PM
If you want to be saved with the good, you better start believing in God the right way. Otherwise you are being evil, and will be destroyed with the rest of the evil, as you have asked, by remaining in unbelief regarding God.

So let's get this straight, you saying people must believe in god or they are automatically labeled as evil?

So someone that believes in god yet still kills people is better than a non-believer that lives a peaceful loving life?

Mmmmmmmmm.....

No. People who do not believe in God are not necessarily labelled as evil. After all, you seem to not believe in God, at least on the outside. Do you label yourself as evil? You are simply trying to mess around when you talk like this. Unbelievers ARE evil. They are not necessarily labelled as evil.

"Someone that believes in God?..." What does that mean? Even demons believe that God exists. They believe in God, but they are not on His side... in favor of Him. Rather, they are against Him. Those who do not believe in God, are against Him simply by not acknowledging the One who holds their life in His hands.

If a person who makes any mistakes, even murder, turns from his mistakes, and turns from his unbelief in the Savior, Jesus (regarding the fact that Jesus' work on the cross saves people from eternal death by giving them forgiveness for their mistakes), yes, he is better than a sweet, dainty, would-never-hurt-a-fly type of person who never does any evil other than not believing in God for salvation.

Why is the mistake-maker better? He is and will be forgiven by faith in Jesus. The "good seeming" person has at least two mistakes inside him. He has the mistake of not being able to keep himself alive, and he has the mistake of not accepting the salvation that God offers... especially if he does not even acknowledge that God exists. But, if he turns to accept Jesus, the salvation from God, he will be saved like the other.

Smiley
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
Knowledge could but approximate existence.
March 08, 2015, 06:00:56 PM
[…]

Is there even [a] way to [scientifically] pro[ve] God's existence?


Quote from: Don Koks. "What are Half Lives and Mean Lives?." Don Koks, 223. 08 Mar. 235. link=http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/HalfLife/halfLife.html
Science is often thought to proceed by our logically deducing the laws that govern the world.  But it's not that simple; there are limits to what we can deduce, especially about things in which we cannot directly participate.  Radioactive decay is a good example of this.  We can't use a microscope to watch the events that make an element decay.  The process is quite mysterious.  But what we can do is make a simple theory of how decay might work, and then use that theory to make a prediction of what measurements we can expect.  That's the way science proceeds: by making theories that lead to predictions.  Sometimes these predictions turn out to be wrong.  That's fine: it means we must tinker with the theory, perhaps discard it outright, or maybe realise that it's completely okay under certain limited circumstances.  The hallmark of a good scientific theory is not what it seems to explain, but rather what it predicts.  After all, a theory that says the universe just appeared yesterday, complete with life on earth, fossils and so on, in a sense "explains" everything beautifully by simply defining it to be so; but it predicts absolutely nothing.  So from a scientific point of view it is not a very useful theory, because it contains nothing that allows its truth to be tested.  On the other hand, while it's arguable that the theory of quantum mechanics explains anything at all, it certainly does predict a huge number of different phenomena that have been observed; and that's what makes it a very useful theory.

[…]

So certainly physics has not proven, and can never prove, that its theory of atomic decay is true.  The logical process is that if atoms decay randomly, then Poisson statistics will result.  Experiments show that Poisson statistics do indeed result, but logically this does not mean that atoms decay randomly.  Nevertheless, the way of science is that we do postulate that atoms decay randomly, until a new experiment calls this into question.  But no experiment ever has.  If this sounds like a reverse use of logic, then consider the same ideas for mechanics.  Ideas of gravity, mass and acceleration were originally produced by Newton through the same process: because they predicted planetary orbital periods that could be verified experimentally.  Because of this great success, expressions such as F = ma and F = GMm/r2 came to be canonical in physics.  The logic was indeed being used in reverse; but no one was surprised when, three centuries later, one of the moon astronauts dropped a feather and a hammer together in the moon's vacuum, and found that they both fell at the same rate (although it was still beautiful and dramatic to watch!).  That reverse logic had, after all, allowed him to get to the moon in the first place.  So this way of conducting science works very well.
(Red colorization mine.)

No, “God” is, metaphorically speaking, the antithesis of “the theory of quantum mechanics” (Koks).
Jump to: