Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 366. (Read 845809 times)

"Agnostic" means nothing more than "rational". It cannot be an alternative to theism and atheism.

This is such a bad quote in my opinion. Since I'm trying to place myself among agnostics.

Agnosticism is not a position at all. It is a means of arriving at a position.

Source

Ok, let's say absolute truth is knowable, but we don't know it yet or haven't agreed upon what's this "absolute truth", so holding an Agnostic position on whether God exists or not is logical.

Absolute truth is unavoidable.  Any attempt to state there is no absolute truth requires making an absolute conclusion.

Examples:
1) There is no absolute truth = it is the absolute truth there is no absolute truth
2) Truth is relative/subjective/etc. = it is the absolute truth that truth is relative/subjective/etc.
3) There is more than one absolute truth = it is the absolute truth that...
4) Nobody can know the absolute truth = I know it is the absolute truth that nobody can...

Basically, this means a couple things:
1) Agnostics can be proven to hold a nonsensical position.
2) Absolute truth is knowable inasmuch as the boundaries of sound logic can allow us to know it.

Edit:  Look at how many absolute statements you make in your post.  Your position irreconcilably contradicts itself.

soon technology and science will explain everything, we still need more time.

Characteristics of a hardcore Creationist:

• Has no sense of humor
• Cherrypicks which parts of the Bible that he's actually going to use in an argument
• Uses semantics ad nauseum (Example: Ken Ham insisting that species are actually properly called "kinds" like there's a significant difference except maybe level of education)
• Loses his temper and insists that we're all going to Hell whenever confronted with evidence that he might be wrong
• Insists that his way of believing is the only true one, despite evidence to the contrary and totally ignoring the hundreds of religions and thousands of denominations, cults, and everyday differences in religious opinions that have ever existed.

Sound familiar to anyone?

Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Bible approximately 3,500 years ago. How do we know? We know it from the traditional writings that have been handed down, and the present-day traditions, of the Hebrew nation.

How do we know that the Hebrew traditions are correct and true? We know it from ancient manuscripts. Some of these are in the Dead Sea Scrolls. These show that the people of Israel, the Hebrews, were extremely accurate and extremely steadfast in the copying and handing down of the Old Testament of the Bible. This steadfastness and accuracy attests to the truthfulness of the Hebrew (Israel) traditions for accuracy regarding the Bible.

Why were the Hebrew people as steadfast and accurate as they were? At least two reasons. One is that there was such power behind the miracles that Moses did, both in Egypt, and in the wilderness for the 40 years, that the impression made upon the people caused them to hand the information down to their children and grandchildren emphatically. The second is that the Spirit of God moved them.

How do we know when Moses wrote? Again, it is Hebrew tradition along with ancient Bible writings, like those found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The book of Isaiah in the DSS has been dated to as early as 325 BC (Actually, there are fragments of as many as 20 Isaiah scrolls in the areas where the DSS were found.). This means that ancient copies are only 1,200 to 1,400 years away from Moses, while being over 2,100 years away from us. This point is important and will be mentioned later.

While the Isaiah scrolls in the DSS show differences in letter formation of the Hebrew alphabet, when compared with the next oldest copies of Isaiah that we have that are NOT DSS, the various themes of the copies remain the same, while the style and actual wording at times varies a little.

Compare the numbers of surviving copies of ancient Bible manuscripts with those of any other ancient (or even more modern) religion. There are few ancient copies of any other religion. Why? I would suggest that there was little strength or power in what was written... or in the writer.

The fact that the clear message of Isaiah is present with us today, yet existed originally much closer to the time of Moses, indicates that Moses was a person of power. Isaiah, himself, testifies to Moses in his Book of Isaiah.

Where is the Book of Isaiah presently? It is the same place as the books of Moses... in the hands of millions or billions of people around the world. Where are the writings of any other religion from as far back as 3,500 years? Approximately nowhere. Any religious writings from any B.C. religion other than the Bible are virtually not in use. Any religious writings from any A.D. religion other than the Bible simply do not have the scope and "majesty" of the writings of the Bible. And none of the others can save souls.

There is a unique power in the Bible. It is a power that in not found in any other writings. It is a power that has kept it alive for 3,500 years, and has kept the tradition of the beginning of the world alive, right down to the present.

The choice is yours. Investigate or ignore. Believe what you will, but consider, WHAT you believe will determine your eternal destiny.

BADecker slandered my truth. But that is not as bad as what he did about it next...

He has no proof at all for anything that he says.

Well, if there need not be gaps then you can easily claim this prize and earn yourself $1M in funds.

I expect you to prove scientifically that there need not be gaps.

It's a game with no end.

There is no ultimate truth, and that's not a problem for me as I'm agnostic.

Let's say that we all wake up one morning and we all have a popup box in our field of view reading "you are in a simulation".

Would we all discover any truth...?  no, there will always be more questions... do the creators of our sim exist in a higher sim, or are they "real" etc. steps would have to be taken to determine possible causes for the shared popup, was it some weird virus dropped by ETs etc.

Only an egotistical fool would think they could find ultimate truth either way. Everybody should apply the best-fit solution to their own perceptions. But it does puzzle me how many theists sit like stubborn toddlers trying to push a square peg in a round hole, still if that pleases them then so be it.

I also note that those with polarized minds (theist and atheist) tend to stop researching and playing. Once they've labelled the box it gets shut, after that their faces drop a little and they become "adults", me I'm a 42 year old boy, I try to hold the same awe when I view the stars as when I was 10. I guess a simple term for agnostic is "keeping an open mind".

Bro, you do not have to become Buddhist or anything. Just be yourself and be good honest man, you do not need any religion to do that.

This thread makes me want to become Buddhist.

That is exactly why I have problem with hardcore believers. They do not have any proof beside: 'I say so' and they tend to be aggressive. Just be civil, please.

Then shut up and listen.

We don't NEED your stinkin' explanations, OK?

Almost all arguments against evolution are "but the gaps".

There needn't be gaps.

People find it very hard to understand that a seemingly clever design can have happened without prior plans or blueprints, but they do!


The concept of the metabolic recipe was not forethought and engineered, it was not designed.

The working recipe emerged through evolution. Many many non working recipes were tried and failed.

Evolution only favors a surviving replicator (obviously).

The complexity of life emerges.


The self correcting mechanisms within a genome were not programmed, they themselves emerged trhough an evolutionary process. The simplest start down this path probably happened by a genome having informational redundancy possibly having multiple copies of the same information and then choosing best of (have 3 copies choose 2 if 1 is different), the life that could do this more efficiently (by consuming less energy) would be favored survivors/reproducers. And so there is a driving force to make the correction mechanism more elegant (use less energy).

Error correction mechanisms were themselves mutated, most failed miserably, the best replicated onward.

Evolutionary drive for self correction mechanisms will be highest during times of turmoil, for example times when earth had alot of incident ionizing radiation for one reason or another.

I am sure of my answer here because I have myself used synthetic genetic algorithms to optimize various lossless audio compression codecs. I have witnessed complexity beyond which I entered as the programmer. This complexity emerges and will not be understood by the programmer.

I have also used evolutionary genetic algos to optimize parameters on very complex systems (neural net topology and weight setting), to brute force tune such systems would take far too long (years), but the evolutionary algo performs multidimensional gradient descent to good solutions very quickly.

I cannot stress enough how amazed I was to see such complexity and order arise from VERY simple operators.

These operators are: Crossover and Mutation.

These operators happen naturally in any self replicating chemistry.

I recommend learning a little about the subject you seem so keen to dismiss:

http://www.obitko.com/tutorials/genetic-algorithms/crossover-mutation.php

NOTE: The above page uses far clearer and simpler language than the text you linked, which reads like it's written by a dunce with a scientific thesaurus.

EDIT:
Incidentally, Self correcting codes, when you visualize the information flow topology, have very simple repeating patterns.

These codes also appear to be in the very quantum fabric of spacetime itself:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1LCVknKUJ4&feature=player_embedded#!
To me that's more interesting than them existing in life (which is kind of to be expected).

Blakjag is right when he talks about Satan being in control of the world. Satan is not God. He is extremely less powerful than God. But he is way more powerful than people in some ways. People fell to him in the Garden, and are subject to him in many ways right now.

The reason God doesn't simply wipe out Satan the same way that you see people slaughter aliens in movies is this. God placed within people an essence of Himself. Properly used, that essence would have been stronger than Satan in the Garden, if the people had used it properly. Instead, they voluntarily listened to Satan rather than to God, and fell into Satan's dominion.

God could destroy Satan faster than lightening if He wanted to. But because of the nature of what Satan is and how he has imbedded himself inside of people, God would have to take down people at the same time. God doesn't want to do this. That isn't what God created people for... their destruction. The way that God is doing it is saving some of the people. Some of them, like Blakjag, don't want to be saved.

What are people? The Bible explains what people who are on His side are. They are the children of God. Come and be one of the children of God in the only way that is available. We die because that is the only way to uproot Satan out of our lives. God will raise us again, to life without even the slightest hint or shadow of Satan. God raised us to life the first time. He can do it again.

Remember one thing in this thread talk. No explanation will ever be enough. If it were sufficiently large to cover all the bases, there would be no way for understanding it. The Bible offers enough to be saved, and to live a right life as much as possible at the same time. Even if the Blakjag writings were on the up and up, rather than simply a method for making money or pushing some people to fame so Blakjag can be lifted up as well, their explanation of things would simply drag people down with lots of words, rather than building them up to life everlasting the only way it can be done, through the Word of God as expressed in the Bible.

God's WORD suggested it, more info on ORMEs ("manna") in there...

We are only exchanging words because you are not motivated to read the WORD. As a result, I have to tell you every way in which God's WORD is superior.


When I examined the content from every angle you proposed (8 points/directions), I found that God's WORD is superior to your Bible in every case.

There is no proper understanding or explanation of souls and rebirth in the Bible. You allege that the message is salvation of souls, but that message is much more clear and literal in God's WORD if anything!

Even though the Bible is filled with references to reincarnation.

We have only words in our debate here. For example, none of us proves the formula for making manna or even suggests it.

When you examine the content from every angle, of both the teachings you prescribe and the teachings of the Bible, you find that Bible teachings outweigh the teachings of everything else. The weight of Bible teaching is in the direction of salvation of souls, not the formula for the "bread" called manna.

God is not known to meet human expectations.

God is profoundly mysterious.

Many refuse to accept while they wait and wait and wait for the truth THEY EXPECT!