Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 369. (Read 845654 times)

However, consider that in the beginning of the Revelation, Jesus says that the purpose of the Revelation is to show His Church what is to come. The Revelation shows this when it explains things that include the destruction of this Heavens and this Earth, right up to and including the creation and existence of the New Heavens and the New Earth.

In other words, everything is covered. Additions to the Revelation include additions to the things that happen right to the end and beyond. Therefore, religious Christian Church writings after the Revelation was given, are additions to the Revelation even though they don't say so directly.

Allegory has meaning beyond the allegory itself. Allegories are used to help describe the meaning. Not all of the Revelation is allegorical. Rather, the Revelation is sprinkled with both, allegory as well as direct truth. The portions that use allegory, use it to describe the direct truth so that people can understand it easier, or so that things that were not clear to John could be described by him.

All that verse says is that you cannot modify the book Revelations, which is allegory. If you limit your truth to allegory, then how smart are  you really? You cannot handle the literal truth?

No proof of anything, BADecker?

Then why the accusations?

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that god is not real...

There. I just made a counter argument just as valid as all of yours.

This is where you fail. You sincerely doubt. Keep on sincerely doubting, and you will doubt yourself right out of existence.



The Revelation in the Bible says, in chapter 22, verses 18 and 19:

"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."

So, I am inaccurate when I call your truth foolishness. Rather, it is destructive heresy, and your "refutings" are utter, raving nonsense.



Because your god is the devil, his words are destructive heresy, and you are in league with his demons... all of you servants of the devil.

May all living beings come to know, practice and benefit from the Sublime Dharma.

Buddha Shakyamuni preached this sutra in heaven shortly after his attainment of Buddhahood.

Some call it the "epitome of Buddhist Thought, Buddhist sentiment, and Buddhist experience," [Source]

http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/samantabhadra.pdf

Basically it says that you can develop great compassion and from the great compassion comes a heart that loves knowledge, and such a heart will lead you to enlightenment.

I sincerely doubt you will expose my truth as a fraud or a joke.

On the other hand, it is very easy to cast doubt on the Bible.

You called my truth "foolishness", but I easily refuted your 8 points, and showed that your book is a poor substitute for the truth.

Why are you attacking God's WORD and the messenger who has brought your attention to it?

If I saw and spoked to God, I'm normal, but if I saw and spoked to a digimon, I'm crazy. Do you see the pattern here?

 

Great post.  First, let me briefly reference the emboldened passages:

1)  Not only have I considered the possibility of an omnipotent entity that is "beyond logic," but I'm knowingly asserting my position in direct contrast to this possibility.  Furthermore, I held onto an agnostic position for a long time until further exploration suggested to me that the position is untenable.  I went from playing along with Roman Catholicism as a child, to atheism, to agnosticism, to a blend of agnosticism and East Asian religious philosophy (e.g. Buddhism, etc.), to complete open-mindedness, and now I've settled as a monistic theist.

2)  I appreciate that you tried to clarify and understand my position, because it's inaccurate.  I do not believe God can ever be revealed via the scientific method or any other line of inductive reasoning.  Even if we do not start with any presuppositions about God (because we shouldn't, else we put the cart before the horse), we already know right off the bat that inductive reasoning lacks the scope necessary to formulate absolute statements about reality at the highest possible level of generality.  Inductive reasoning fails because a presupposition about God would need to preclude any absolute statements made about such an entity.  In other words, we would need to somehow know absolutely what God is before finding any evidence to support that presupposition.  Obviously, this creates a huge problem, so we need a way to avoid the problem altogether.

Stemming from these two points, first we need to consider what is relevant to us, and perhaps the best way to identify what is relevant is to first identify which is irrelevant.  Specifically, things that are unreal or illogical are of no relevance to us because there is absolutely no possible way to make sense out of them.  If something were 'real' enough outside of reality so as to have an impact on it, then it would need to be inside reality.  Similarly, reality would be completely unintelligible if it weren't logical, and the fact that we all observe and interact with a stable Universe demonstrates that reality is inherently logical.

Now, let's focus on your phrasing when you talk about the possibility of an entity that is "beyond logic."  This is where things get fun. Really fun.  And really, really cool.

You could say that, in a sense, logic itself is beyond logic.  What I mean by this is that logic is holographic in structure.  I'm not sure how familiar you are with holograms, but if you take a piece of holographic film and you cut a corner from it, e.g. 25%, the result is not a corner that reveals 25% of the original image, but rather you have 100% of the image at 1/4 size.  Logic is similar. There are all kinds logical systems that vary according to scale, and although the sizes of these different systems vary, the logical properties governing all of them are the same.  

When we observe something, the logic and rules of observation (i.e. at a higher level) relate to the observed conditions (i.e. at a lower level) and allow us to make rational (remember, root word = ratio), statements about that relation.  Similarly, when we engage in metacognition, the logic and rules of metacognition (i.e. at a higher level) relate to various abstract objects of cognition (i.e. at a lower level) and allow us to make rational statements about that relation, too.  

The point I'm making is that we already have insight into how something 'beyond logic' works.  However, I would just clarify that it's not quite accurate to say 'beyond logic,' but rather it might be more accurate to say something like, "There exist logical systems of lower order that are necessitated by logical systems of higher order."  

If you're having trouble understanding what I mean by all of this, I'll refer you to an illustrative analogy I've used several times on this forum to demonstrate the point:  Imagine that we, as 3rd-dimensional beings, want to know what the 4th dimension is like. As 3D beings, we are limited by certain logical boundaries that define the 3rd dimension, so how can we know what the 4th dimension is like?   Well, what we can do is we can draw something like a tesseract, a 4th-dimensional object, on a 2nd-dimensional plane of paper.   But, similar to the problem of induction I spoke of earlier, how can we know that a tesseract is a sound model of a 4th-dimensional object?  Wouldn't that require that we invoke a presupposition of what a 4th-dimensional object is like before we've evidenced it?

As it turns out, when we draw a tesseract on a piece of paper, we are actually removing ourselves from the constraints of our 3rd-dimensional perspective, and instead we assume the perspective of a 5th-dimensional entity.  That is, we assume a 5d perspective and talk about the 4th dimension in the same way that we, as 3d beings, can fully explore and understand the logic of the 2nd-dimension.  All spatial dimensions are the same in their logical constructs (e.g. the 3rd-dimension can be described as the infinite sum of all 2d phenomena, the 4th-dimension can be described as the infinite sum of all 3d phenomena, etc.), but they vary according to scope.

To wrap up this post, notice how spatial dimensions are all logical constructs, but each successive dimension is *infinitely* greater than the previous one.  This should provide you with some insight into how we can gain insight into something (God?) that is infinitely greater than we or the logical system(s) we inhabit.

Edit:  Oh, I guess I should clarify what my actual position is.  My position is that God:Reality :: Man:Perceptions.  I believe it is accurate to say "man was created in God's image," and I think that we are all essentially gods...mini-gods.   I would venture so far as to say that, at the greatest possible scale, the interplay of consciousness and reality is God attempting to know himself and move towards self-actualization.

You make these statements based on logic (and there's little doubt you are very intelligent), but have you considered the possibility that an omnipotent being is beyond logic? In the same way a worm does not have the capacity to understand the stock market, it is impossible for us to truly understand an omnipotent being. It's my understanding that you hold the position that if we follow a scientific method (ie. Metatron's Cube) god will eventually be revealed, because you believe god follows and is bound by this method. I'm suggesting that a truly omnipotent being doesn't and isn't. The mysteries of this entire (observable) universe may or may not be revealed by such a method, but I very much doubt it can ever reveal what is unobservable, whether it be outside of this universe, or what came before and after its existence.

This is why being agnostic makes perfect sense. (Meaning, God is unknowable.) Unless, you are one of the many believers that believe god gave us "His Word" as is written in the Bible, Koran, etc., then you can decide to be for god (ie. Christian) or against (ie. Satanist). Otherwise, you are left with atheism or anti-theism. Of all these positions on god, it's obvious that only the (correct) believers (that are worthy and on god's side) can truly know god, because god said so.

1. That argument is based on what MAN SAYS that God says. God is unlimited, so we receive as much understanding as we are capable of. There is no way that you can fail to get the message after reading God's WORD.
2. Speak for yourself! How are you living a right life when you have failed to examine your own beliefs and their shortcomings, and you are screaming about the splinter in mine eye and calling my truth "foolishness"?
I am looking for sound and logical reasons to suspect that God's WORD is illegitimate and/or inferior to the Bible, and even any reason to suspect that Christ's authentic teachings are absent in God's WORD but present in the Bible, but you have not provided even a single good reason (I refuted them all). You were wrong for slandering my truth in total ignorance of the facts. A "right life" means that you take responsibility for your actions.
3. How exactly will Christ's teachings limit your spiritual progress? Speak for yourself! You ignore the possibility that by repeating a message, the message is clearer. You prefer less information to more information? You want the lite version of God's WORD? The one filled with tales and allegory? Or do you want the literal truth?
4. If there is going to be any saving going on, then YOU will do it. You will either earn your spiritual unity or not.

There's a difference between saying "I don't know" and "it is impossible to know."  It's a *huge* difference.  Furthermore, whether or not we "agree" about absolute truth has no bearing on its nature.

It's a logical position to say, "I don't know," but illogical to say, "It can't be known."

It's my belief that not only can it be known, but most of it is pretty self-evident (e.g. it is self-evident that the Universe cannot exist independent of observation, etc.).

Your book is not even that great, BADecker...

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Agnostic?s=t :

"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