Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 347. (Read 845809 times)

Does this then mean that you are accepting as your own, the same basic reasons as I, why one might want to examine what religion and God are in the first place? I still haven't been able to get out of you a simple, itemized list as to why anyone might want to look at the writings you profess.

A simple itemized list might look like the one below. Now, don't get me wrong. This is only an example to guide you in writing your list. I am not at all saying that this is what your list is or would be if you wrote it down. This is only a little example showing how you might write your list, so we all can see clearly a little bit about what you and your writings are there for.

A list of the potential benefits from reading my stuff:
1. Offers a method to get rich;
2. Offers a method to see the universe by flying around the universe in a spaceship;
3. Gives me three wishes like Aladdin's lamp;
4. Shows me how to get rid of any disease I might have;
5. Gives me profound wisdom and understanding so I can outsmart all my neighbors.

Now, of course, some (if not all) of the 5 items I listed above, might be a little silly. Or maybe not, considering that you haven't given a simple list yet... at least not that I have seen, anyway. But perhaps you would kindly list, say, two of the best benefits one might get for reading your stuff (not even 5, like I listed above), so that I and others at least have a little incentive to do the reading (not that we would, necessarily, but...).

What do you think? Can you do this little thing for all of us?

Thanks. You are a sweetheart for doing so.

I respect your belief of what God is. But, since you recognize that you and everything were created by Him, shouldn't you at least honor Him by capitalizing the first letters of your name for Him? >>>
Huge-Numbers-And-Massive-Amounts-Of-Time

I find it hard to believe that you have actually questioned your beliefs, BADecker.

We are still no closer to answering the problem of the criterion as you can see with your discussion with The Joint.

And also, you do not have the context enough to understand that Nicea was not a distillation of authentic faith.
I have discussed how Paul was never a follower of Christ, so by which criteria do you judge Paul's teaching to be correct?

Please at least read these sources to get some context:

Sources Section and section on messianic movements
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Temple_Judaism

Look BADecker, by careful study of the Problem of the criterion, you too can put into context such discoveries of science as "all is information and energy" and "spiritual essence is never born, so it can never die". Knowing the secret to immortality and energy/information is the theme of spirituality, concepts like "salvation" have little support, but we can always share the world of love, so it is the "altered ego" which desires to be saved by love. After all, you cannot share an experience, so all of these reasons make salvation unlikely unless it is by one's own efforts.

God is love and no one is left out of universal love.

I made use of some sources: "The Crystal Cave" and the three other lectures from "Deepak Chopra: The Essential DVD Collection" (1995) and" of course Phoenix Journals which are very explicit and well - referenced; making them superior to the Nicean and Pauline teachings. The Bible simply never says "Jesus is God" and you can see this fact on the Wikipedia page for "Christ".

I hope that you can see why both I and The Joint are Discussing with you the Problem of the Criterion and related issues.

And here:
http://creation.com/origin-of-life-instability-of-building-blocks

And here:
http://www.whale.to/b/pye1.html

That is an assumption which you will find exceedingly hard to prove.

Your claim is not factual; it is wishful thinking.

But if you can back up your claim then by all means feel free to do so. I have already asked in other threads...

Some of the issues with your claim are discussed here:

http://www.us.net/life/

BADecker, this is you in a nutshell:


Now, you probably are just a little bit smarter than Bill ORLY O'Reilly, in that I'm hoping you do understand what causes tidal movement on this planet. But the point is still the same, in that you sit back in your deck-chair, gazing up at the night sky and simply declare everything to be so incomprehensibly complicated that it absolutely positively could only ever be created by an omnipotent super-being whom we are only able to discern the truth of through various ancient writings, you know, what with there being nothing more to go by since the various ancient writings were authored and so we'll just go right ahead and accept that, whatever has been written about the omnipotent super-being must be true because its all we have in terms of data and a bunch of bronze-age goat-herders clearly knew far more about the hidden secrets of The Universe than we could ever hope to discern with our new-fangled scientific reasoning n'all.

BTW, before you go for the ol', "Yeah, well, the fact is that the environment is just so damn perfect for us on earth, what are the chances of that, hmmmmm? Must have been designed to be that way!"

Pro-tip, if things were not 'just right' for biological life to exist on this planet do you know what would have happened? Nothing, biological life wouldn't have thrived in the first place and we wouldn't be here to claim that everything must have been designed because it fits us so well. There's billions of planets out there which, also, will be suitable for biological life, along with billions which won't be.

Numbers, huge numbers and time, massive amounts of time. That's what created us and every other living thing in this Universe that we haven't met yet.

Responding in order (generally):

1)  Correct, recognizing complexity does not necessarily mean that you can understand it.  However, your response, here, is missing the point, isn't it?  I was referring to the irony of you stating that man can never begin to understand the complexity, and then you immediately contradict yourself by going right on telling us what that complexity is.  Specifically, it's a contradiction because you are implying that you understand this complexity enough to tell us what it means, immediately after finishing your statement that understanding isn't possible.

2)   No, it's not at all like science theory.  The scientific method has firm boundaries which it acknowledges at all times.  As long as one remains aware of those boundaries and follows the rules (i.e. the "method"), then ones conclusions remain sound in the context of that method.

3)  No, everyone does not believe in God.  If someone says, "I don't believe in God" and is honest, then they do not believe in God.  Simple.

4)  So, you use a lack of knowledge as a concrete basis for belief?  Would it be fair, then, to suggest that you believe that the less you know about something, the better reason there is to believe in something?  If so, do you think this makes sense when you read it?

5)  "Demons believe in Him?"  Um...what?  This paragraph is just a lot of weird assumptions.   You asserted earlier that humans can't understand such complexity, and yet you're suggesting you know the relational dynamics between two entities which you also admitted you may believe in for incorrect reasons?

Look, I'm sorry, but you would be more correct by saying, "I have no idea what I'm talking about, I'm just guessing."  That would seem to be a more appropriate overview of your beliefs.

The take home point is that, with every post you make, you are using logic.  But, in virtually every post you denounce logical approaches to knowledge (e.g. the scientific method, etc.).  You can't do that without making untrue statements.  Do your beliefs about God include the belief that God wishes his believers to preach what is false?  Because that's exactly what you're doing, and provably so.

6)  Yeah...the rest of your post is more of you contradicting yourself.  If you're going to preach as if you know the truth, then you really shouldn't assert the belief that man can't possibly know what that truth is.

Recognizing an area of complexity has nothing to do with understanding it, necessarily. Recognizing that I don't understand it helps me to recognize where it exists.



Thanks for the advice. Isn't this a little like (even though it is exactly opposite of) a lot of science theory? For example, there are all kinds of correct statistics and thinking about aspects that make up Big Bang Theory. Yet the conclusion that the Big Bang existed in any of the major views of its Theory is completely false.

I appreciate that you believe in God... at least, that you recognize that you believe in God. Everyone believes in God. And at the expense of potentially having wrong reasons for what I'm about to say, the reason I believe that universal faith in God exists is partially because nobody knows for a fact anything that is going to happen even an instant into the future. We understand through experience that God is allowing and holding a reasonably stable universe in place. So, we have hope that the past moment indicates what the future moment will be like. We were strongly built into this understanding during our formation time in mommy's tummy, and during the first few years of life outside.

The strange part about believing in God is that you can believe in Him incorrectly, as can I. Demons believe in Him, but they know that they will be destroyed by Him. Something like this belief might make their faith in Him stronger at times. Yet, it never becomes saving faith.

When a human being comes to faith in the salvation that God promises to all who believe it - Jesus salvation - that person's faith is instantly bumped from standard faith into a faith that is wildly stronger. It is by no means the upper limit of strength that the faith can possibly achieve. But it is so extremely strong that it actually combines with God enough that the person will be saved in the resurrection.

The danger in this kind of faith is, once it has been attained by an individual, if it is lost somehow, there is virtually no chance that it can be regained again. However, if a person has question about whether or not he has lost his saving faith, he probably hasn't. God is faithful Himself. He won't let a person's saving faith fail easily.

So, you assert that mankind can't understand the complexity, and then you, a man, goes on to tell us what understanding we are missing?

I advise you again to consider that you can be correct in your belief about something, but for the wrong reasons.  I believe in God, as do you, but in all the posts I have seen of yours (several dozen to possibly >100 by now), I cannot recall any solid reasoning to support what you believe.  The contradictions in your posts are innumerable.

You are right. And it would prove the same point. The point is that mankind barely understands much of anything that goes on in his universe. Man simply plods on through life, flowing with all the forces that move him along this way and that, but never beginning to understand the complexity involved in all of it.

If mankind understood a little of the complexity, he would understand that the devil, and mankind himself by following the devil rather than God, welcomed all the bad things that exist into nature and life. If he understood this, he would recognize how wonderful God is that he even gives man the bad things he asks for right along with the good man doesn't really deserve.

Nature can be beautiful... but also brutal. You can just as easily say go sit in the middle of an AIDS-ravaged village on a deckchair with a cocktail and bask in the glorious sun as you watch how graceful a parasite bores into the eye of a innocent human making them blind. Either god expertly designed the parasite or it evolved like every other thing on this planet. If he did invent it then he is not gracious but a psychopath. Regardless, if there was a god the bible would be an insult to his intelligence any way so I hope the wrong god you're not believing in is willing to have mercy or you're screwed  .

Inhale. Exhale. Inhale. Exhale.

Assuming by the evidence that it seems that you can read and write English...

Get on over to the books section of a Walmart or Target, or find a local, standard book store, and pick up a copy. Call the bookstore, first, because some bookstores may not have them.

If you are an English reader as you seem to be, grab a modern English version, because an old English version is actually in a dialect that we don't use anymore.

If you want to check out the versions rather inexpensively, go to BibleGateway at https://www.biblegateway.com/, and check their dropdown menu near the right top of the page for available versions. Test them out. Find one that is to your "flavor," of your general "liking" for its structure. If you want, you can actually read the Bibles online at BibleGateway, so you don't have to purchase anything.

I'm not interested in learning Greek or Hebrew.
So are you suggesting anyone that cannot read Greek or Hebrew has only ever read one of those false bibles?

Gotchya. See, you weren't even interested in reading a Bible, much less in finding out what it said.

See you've avoided the question. The reason why is because you haven't the foggiest idea which is the true bible, same as everyone else.

Learn Greek and Hebrew. Find a Jewish Rabbi, and ask him for the best Hebrew Old Testament version. For the New Testament, learn Greek, and check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Bible to find the most suitable direction you want to go.



EDIT: Do you really know how to read and write? Or do you simply dictate your posts to a friend who has the capability for inputting?

You still there BADecker? You keep telling me to read the bible, okay then, which one?

Well, thank you, darkota. This is as friendly as you have talked to me yet.

Yes, I know. It is the same for me. We think that we are finding out so much through science, and we are. Then our greatness pales into nothingness in the face of all the things there are to know, and all the things that we have close to no ability to track.

I have faith in God. But I really don't know Him as much as I would like to think. So, I have hope. I must have hope, just to keep from going crazy. 'Cause if He doesn't keep His promise of free eternal life for me after the resurrection He promises, there's no way I will ever be able to do it.

First off, it's impossible to see atoms with the naked eye...Secondly, what you're describing is tranquility, peace of mind, similar to meditation. It has nothing to do with 'God", but since it relieves you of stress to do such a thing, you liken it to God...Yet another fallacy. Everything you've described just now is taught through some forms of meditation like Transcendental, and it is science.

Step outside sometime in the summertime, and sit down on a lawn chair. Take a half-hour off from the bustling business of the day to watch a leaf on a tree, swaying gracefully in the gentle summer breeze.

Track every molecule of air that touches the leaf. Track where they each individually come from as they are swept along by the other molecules, all of which are being played upon by the energy of the sun. Track where they are going as they are deflected by the vanes in the leaf. Track the energy that moves the molecules, each one swinging to the vibration of the particular waves that touch it.

When you can do the above, you are starting to capture the control needed to maintain your life by your own understanding. Science isn't even close to something like this. And this is only the tiniest start of starts towards controlling your own life.

You better hope that God is a gracious God, and that He is willing to have mercy on you and hear your cry. 'Cause otherwise, you simply are going to die.