Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 436. (Read 845654 times)

The bolded selection above makes no sense.  If something said to be impossible exists, then your assumption that it was/is impossible is wrong.   That being said, since it does exist and is therefore obviously possible, then it does not in any way constitute proof that there is a god, nor does it constitute proof that God created the book.

This is where you lose me. The bible isn't magic, impossible to exist, or proof of god. It's a malleable text that has changed as the political landscape of the church has changed. Hebrew scholars don't maintain it is either, unless they're fundamentalists:


Timothy H. Lim is a professor of Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Judaism at the University of Edinburgh. I believe his description of how the bible came to be more than yours, no offense. You've asked me to examine the history of the bible, but I don't have the faculties to do so, so I do the next best thing and rely on the experts who do.

The proof is in the nature of the god, and what you can find out about him/her/it.

For example, if somebody walked up to you and said, "I am God," you might answer, "prove it." If he takes off his hat and pulls a rabbit out of it, you might say, "I've seen that trick before."

But if he takes you throughout hospitals that have thousands of sick people in them, and heals everyone of them before your eyes, and is killed and rises from the dead, and floats up into the air and is hidden in the clouds, even out of the sight of radar, you might be on your way towards being convinced slightly.

Years later, if your grandson hears the story from you, he might not believe it. But if you show him the book that talks about this, and you show him how the book came into existence in a way impossible for a book like this to come into existence, he might still not believe. He still might think the book is a hoax.

This is a little about the Bible, and the God that it portrays. If you examine the history and strong tradition of how the Bible came into being, you will see that it is a book that is impossible to exist. This being the case, the God who caused the impossible-to-exist book to actually exist and be spread across the world like the Bible has been, must be the true God.

Studying the history of the Bible (or any book) might entail a lot of time and work in areas that are not your expertise, and are not something you want to get started in. So, you check out what the Bible scholars have to say.

The choice is still yours. You can believe them or not. But if you do the examination yourself, and if you are of a sincere mind, truly wanting to find God, you will have to agree at least, that the God of the Bible is One that is exceedingly more probable to exist than any of the others, even if you don't believe in Him.

The choice will always be yours, at least until He comes to you in person, and proves to you Who He is, in the ways that only a God can.

You're speaking of the Christian god. There are thousands of other gods all promising all manner of things in return for your faith. Who is to say one god is greater than any other? The followers of each all proclaim theirs is the greatest, but they all can't be right. In fact, the rules most religions build up around their god preclude the possibility of everyone being right:

'Allah is the one true god and Mohammad is his prophet.' -Islam
'I am the lord your god, you shall have no other gods before me.' -Christianity

These are just two of the most popular religions today, and despite the fact that Islam proclaims to worship the same god as the Christian god, the followers of these religions have a long history of killing each other over 'worshiping the wrong god.'

I don't find compelling any religion's case that their god exists, let alone that he is the sole god. The whole 'but only I can bring you salvation' bit each religion throws in sounds desperate, like a used-car salesman who really needs to make his quota this month to keep his job.

That's what trolls are in Bitcointalk. 

Those are "very, very, very small [Big Bangs]."

At last.. 'Force' implies 2

It was forced (it did not "just [happen]").

And it just happened that out of the billions and billions of stars/planets everywhere that this god particle just happened to be found here? That's a laugh in itself, I mean, can this boson/particle speak?

Did'nt think so..

Can it vibrate enough to create ripples throughout the vastness of the void that may be left if all else just imploded?

Did'nt think so..

There is a fellow, govt. M. A. Limakasidios, that has seen the world and been disheartened. Within his more "spiritual" squalor, he rose himself against that.

His Office, Government of Great Empire, Mαρκoς Aνδρεας Λημακασἰδιoς—founder of limakasidian entropism, authoritarian anarchism, and limakasidian arithmetic—has founded a terra-celestial state, Great Empire of Earth, of 240 × 10¹⁵ km³ so as to fell that dishonor presently known man.

Where did you get this from?  Are these your own words?  I'm genuinely curious.

See this following:

Complex response:  Absorbing infrared light is an interpretation based upon the amount of evidence we've acquired from the technology we have.  Before we knew what infrared light was, it was interpreted differently,   The problem, however, is we don't know where the limit of evidence and rational interpretation ends, so it's still an arbitrary interpretation, albeit relatively less arbitrary than if we were limited to the same evidence available to mankind pre-science.  

Let me also point out that your experience self-evidently comes prior to your explanation of it.  Accordingly, there *must* be some information or knowledge that you take away from that experience so that you can fit an abstract model to it.   The model is a deconstruction of a thing that you experienced in a more comprehensive way (your model can never be more comprehensive than your experience of an event and the evidence you pull from it; if it were, it'd be a priori unsound as it would imply the existence of unknown assumptions).

Simple response:  
Yes, you feel warmth.  Warmth is inherently relative, and so you know when you feel warm and not cold.  Science routinely oversteps its bounds when it tries to explain subjective feelings solely in terms of what's externally observable.  It's bad science.

A more entropic "God" could counter that more entropy anemic one as well.

I believe that you are close to right, if not right exactly.

That still doesn't answer the question of scientific proof.

Salvation by believing in Jesus is the only way. That salvation comes through reading or hearing the Word of God, only... no other way.

However, since God created the workings of the universe through speaking them into being, there just might be a whole lot of people who will hear God's word even though they don't read the Bible, and are saved anyway. BUT, BUT, BUT, don't depend on this for salvation. After all, hearing the Word of God through nature doesn't present very much clarity. Read and believe the Bible.

(That post was recomposed prior your reply.)

One does not "[feel] the warmth"; one's body absorbs infrared light. (That you would refer to the later as the former illustrates that you are privy most wholly to that really born of conception within Homo sapien mind and not that therewithout.)

I used to think things like "I know nothing," until I realized how stupid it was.  Now, I basically ignore anyone who adamantly states that you can't really know anything.

I personally distinguish between two kinds of knowledge:  1) That which can be known directly through experience, and 2) that which can be known indirectly through evidence/proof.

To use an example, the former would be like feeling the warmth of the sun on your face and knowing that it is warm out, while the latter is like looking at a thermometer and seeing that it's 85 degrees outside and concluding that it is warm outside.  When you directly feel the warmth of the sun on your face, there is no rationale required to know and understand what is there; more specifically, direct experience occurs when a subject unifies with an object such that they are indistinguishable (this is even reflected in our language when we say things like, "I am warm").  In contrast, rationale is an absolute necessity to make sense out of a thermometer reading, and the only way you can assert it is warm is if you know that there are temperatures much lower than 85 degrees by having evidenced them; 'ratio' is the root word of 'rationale.'

Inasmuch as logic is a closed system with recognizable boundaries and rules, it's not only possible to know something, but it's possible to know something absolutely and perfectly in an absolutely perfect, logical way.  But, no matter how perfectly logical it is, it will always be different than the knowledge gained through direct experience.

Edit:  I see you edited your post to something semantically fun.  Give me some time on that one.

Nothing (that is, "no thing") is "experienced" but "perceived."

I believe that every able-bodied human has the capacity to understand everything that is necessary for him to understand, and that the reason this is true is that the most "true" interpretation of reality is that which is directly experienced and therefore independent of rationale and abstraction.  I believe that this is the only sort of information that can be absolutely known (i.e. known through direct and perfect means, which is different than knowing through indirect means such as evidence or 'proof').

See this following:


Comprehension of participation may prove had within an ignorance of those participant thereto correspondent.