waterdog

Proof of God's Existence

Recommended Posts

Cliptin, thanks for the links, some good info.

I was mainly referring to the fact that many religios institutions have been responible for hindering the public school system. Both evolution and the "big bang" were at one point or another banned in public schools somwhere in the US. Who was responible for that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which shows that whatever can be found in the bible isn't necessarily The Real Thing and could have easily been taken from some other religion, like most religions seem to do. Nice to know you agree...

i have not said that the Bible is not accurate. no where in the Bible does it say that Jesus Christ was born a man on december 25. probably because it doesn't matter.it's like if you were to meet a celebrity. nobody would care what day you visited the celebrity. what matters is that you met one. that's just like the Bible. it gives the steak and potatoes part of the story. it doesn't matter what day He was born. what matters is that He was born.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cliptin, thanks for the links, some good info.

I was mainly referring to the fact that many religios institutions have been responible for hindering the public school system. Both evolution and the "big bang" were at one point or another banned in public schools somwhere in the US. Who was responible for that?

The good people of these united states? :rolleyes:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f...opes/evolut.htm

Some people were afraid that were a scientific theory that could support an alternative explaination to the biblical account of creation to be taught in school, that societies fabric would have been rended. They would have rather not exposed pupils to this theory rather than explain its faults. Security by obsolescence, if you will. We all know that is only effective for a limited time. Pure lazyness in my view. However, the specific concerns of the detractors of that time have since gone away. No current day serious evolutionist still believes that man descended from monkeys. Evolutionists of today are only willing to hold to a micro-evolution stance, that is evolution within a speces. I have no problem with that stance and in fact, for me, it goes a long way toward explaining seeming physical impropabilities of Noah and his ark.

Absurdly, now the only theory that can be taught is evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IMHO it is an easy way out. Just being sorry isn't enough in the eyes of the people, so making it enough in the eyes of God is a sales pitch for the church. It clearly is the more attractive option for sinners. And I do mean people who are honestly sorry for their sins, not those who pay lip-service.

The Bible is filled with people who wanted to do just enough to get by. In the new testament, the Pharsees were very good at keeping the letter of the law. Saul/Paul of the Bible was trained as a Pharisee. You have identified the issue correctly as a heart matter. Catholic, like Mormons and Islamists have placed works in great importance and grace, if the idea is held at all, minimized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

even though works are looked highly upon as a Catholic, i wouldn't say that we "brush off" the idea of grace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, to answer the original post, god's existance can neither be proved or disproved.  But one can always mention something about probablity and Occam's Razor.
Occam's Razor is especially important for universal models such as the ones developed in General Systems Theory (The transdisciplinary study of the abstract organization of phenomena, independent of their substance, type, or spatial or temporal scale of existence. It investigates both the principles common to all complex entities, and the (usually mathematical) models which can be used to describe them.), mathematics or philosophy, because there the subject domain is of an unlimited complexity. If one starts with too complicated foundations for a theory that potentially encompasses the universe, the chances of getting any manageable model are very slim indeed. Moreover, the principle is sometimes the only remaining guideline when entering domains of such a high level of abstraction that no concrete tests or observations can decide between rival models.

If you were to commit one way or the other, which way would it be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The waging war between creationists and evolutionists.

Scientific American speaks about almost every other month.

What a waste of time...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And if no written record (discounting the bible again) the most they will be able to do is recall that we thought him an asshole. Will they be completely convinced? If they are they're quite gullible.

So you discount every history book ever written? How recent does the history need to be in order for you to trust that the writers wrote it down in good faith accuracy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Occam's (or Ockham's) Razor is a useful philosophical tool, not a logical law. It can help to find a better answer, but is of no use in proving or disproving anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
many of us know that Jesus Christ was not necessarily born as a man on December 25. there is a good reason why we chose December 25. there was a major pagan holiday that used to be on dec 25. it obviously did not give glory to God, so Christmas became dec. 25. Christmas became wildly popular over the pagan holiday.

Gurl, nobody knows when Jesus Christ was born. Some say 6BC, others say 4 BC, others again 3BC. Take your pick. The day when he was born.....nobody knows since this is NOT mentionned in the bible.

It is assumed he was born september 11th (does this ring a bell), far away from december 25th.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"i have not said that the Bible is not accurate. no where in the Bible does it say that Jesus Christ was born a man on december 25. probably because it doesn't matter."

Come one, you can do better then that. It doesn't mather???????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the long post -- I've been gone a while. :)

It is evidence of creation (note the lower case "c" in creation).

Science accepts / theorizes that everything has a beginning and an end does it not? And therefore the Universe' date=' in that it exists, must have had a begining musn't it?[/quote']

It is only evidence of creation insofar as one accepts your second statement that everything has a beginning and an end.

To my knowledge, "science" generally accepts/theorizes only one thing: one can come to understand the forces of this universe via observation and experimentation. Various scientists at various times "generally accept(ed)" various principles and theories. As far as I know, there is no logical imperative for beginning and end for everything. For example, mathematics has a concept of infinity, and "pure" mathematics and logic are certainly in the same family. It might be true that every event has a cause, but this is not quite the same thing as postulating a beginning and an ending, and Aquinas has already used this reasoning to try and prove god, and that reasoning has been rebuffed. But let's put this discussion of assumptions of beginnings and endings away, unless you have some further argument about it you'd like to share.

You must accept that the universe was created by something or someone. Otherwise you are at direct odds with science. Because the only alternative view to it having been created is that it has always been and always will be. And science tells us this is just not possible and is certainly not the case.

We "know" the big bang started the current state of events within the system (the system as we understand it -- "the system" could perhaps be interchangeable for "the universe") we inhabit now. Since we have yet to discover any means of detecting anything prior to the big bang (or shall we say, we have never detected anything that could be construed as evidence that anything existed prior to the big bang), we cannot know what happened to our universe prior to it, if anything. Just like we cannot know that there is anything beyond our death.

So if we have no evidence by which to possibly base what came prior to the big bang, from a scientific point of view it is equally likely god started it as it is that some other events took place beforehand. Since this is the case, a "creator" in the sense that it was a "being" (supernatural mover) does NOT follow from the existence of the universe -- only that there was a cause for the present state of the universe (the effect).

But then we simply move to the next level in our thinking and ask what is it that caused the big bang? And who or what was that created the matter to "bang" in the first place? Science cannot answer these latter two questions. And so there are no grounds really at all for you to feel any more confident with science than you do with religion when it comes to the creation of the universe.

Science cannot? That's a pretty bold claim. Have not I accept, but cannot is just unfounded assertion. I don't really see how they could figure out what caused the big bang, but then a hundred+ years ago, Charles Darwin might not have been able to figure out how anyone could find out what exactly makes animals inherit traits from their parents.

As for being equally confident in science or religion: science asserts (hypothesizes), tests, and then modifies its assertions to try and reflect the results of the tests (extreme oversimplification, but the principle stands). Religion in general merely asserts. Many different religions are contradictory (in the absence of very forgiving interpretation), and most if not all will strive to show how the premises really do fit the "conclusions" of the religion. They will rarely if ever change the "conclusion" in the light of new evidence (not that most if any religions occupy a realm in which any new evidence is likely to be observed). So, to me, science in general has a lot more of my confidence than religion in general -- but that is saying nothing about particular scientific theories/branches or particular religions -- things kind of have to move on a case-by-case basis. Shall we say that I trust the methods of science far more than the methods of religion -- though I recognize that does not invalidate the conclusions of religion.

No you don't need to have faith to trust. What you need is courage and the willingness to try it. Nothing else is required. Faith and trust will come in time. And fear will leave. You have to take chances if you wish to grow.

I don't get it. How can I "try" it without putting in some trust?

On the flip side, I do think I understand now what you meant in your faith/trust dichotomy.

You don't have to place your trust or faith in anything if don't wish to. I am not trying to convert you here. But to answer your question, it doesn't really matter which "higher beings" you use. Does God care? Certainly in my opinion he does. And more importantly on a more more personal level, those who have faith in him know that he cares specifically for them.

Excellent, then we are at an understanding: I don't have to place my trust or faith in anything, there is no particular reason for me to believe in a specific higher being, and there is no particular reason for me to believe in any higher being at all, but I could believe in something if I wanted to.

Now that we have the answers, you and I should really try to share them with everyone else. Don't you think?

[Cliptin:]An alternative interpretation, and more believable in light of the book as a whole, is that Christ fulfilled the Law on his resurrection. This was prophesied many times in the old testament.

Yes, but IIRC the OT prophecies were of the end of the world, essentially. As far as I can tell, the world has not ended. The purpose for the Law -- the covenant between god and the Hebrews -- was Shalom ("peace" is one translation, IIRC -- and not the sort of peace that means "not war"). Shalom was sort of like the end of the world where the Hebrews are united with god. Sure, you can read Christianity out that metaphorically, but I really think that it's tough to say that the OT prophecy supports that reading. IANA theologist, though (nor even a particularly learned amateur), so I may be wrong here.

Define "spiritual issues"? Based on the context I would assume that you would accept first hand accounts of miracles as spiritual issues. Or perhaps a personal explaination of a parable?

The books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, 1 & 2 Peter, 1,2 & 3 John and Revelations are understood to be written by people who knew Jesus personally. My memory is iffy on James. IIRC, some believe this was Jesus' brother.

Hmm...if you mean the people that recorded the books in the Gospel, then no, they did not know Christ as far as we know. They were not firsthand accounts. They are recordings of someone else's account of and account of a firsthand accout, for all we know. Or perhaps they were directly taken from one or more firsthand accounts. But the fact remains that the Gospels themselves are not firsthand accounts, nor most likely even one singular firsthand account in all of them (we can take this one step further by noting that for some of Jesus' quotes, there was no one there to record them). And John was written 70+ years after the death of Christ. Firsthand? Surely you jest.

Many once believed that the universe had no beginning or end and was truly infinite. Through the inception of the Big Bang theory, however,no longer could the universe be considered infinite. The universe was forced to take on the properties of a finite phenomenon, possessing a history and a beginning.

The big bang theory only proved that we haven't always been as we are now. That's hardly proving that there was nothing before the big bang.

[GodsGurl:]Leviticus 17:11 (written 3000 years ago): "For the life of the flesh is in the blood."

The Scriptures declare that blood is the source of life. Up until 120 years ago, sick people were "bled", and many died because of the practice. We now know that blood is the source of life. If you lose your blood, you will lose your life.

I'll go the good professor one better on this: saying that the life of the flesh is in the blood is akin to saying the life of the fire is in the oxygen (or the fuel, or the heat -- the three things required for fire, known as the "fire triangle"). The life of the flesh is in far more than just the blood, as we can see that someone can die, even though their blood still flows.

many of us know that Jesus Christ was not necessarily born as a man on December 25. there is a good reason why we chose December 25. there was a major pagan holiday that used to be on dec 25. it obviously did not give glory to God, so Christmas became dec. 25. Christmas became wildly popular over the pagan holiday.

You say that "there is a good reason why we chose December 25," but you do not actually mention the reason beyond that it conincided with a pagan holiday (yule/solstice). Why would its conicidence with a pagan religious observance be a good reason to choose 12/25?

The answer was to convert pagans to Christianity, of course. So the church manufactured a holiday to help convert pagans. Why would anyone want to manipulate a holiday to gain conversions?

[Cliptin:]No current day serious evolutionist still believes that man descended from monkeys.

Few if any ever did hold that man descended from monkeys. This was a misunderstanding perpetrated by the media and religious leaders of the time. IIRC, the argument was always that man and monkeys shared a common ancestor.

Absurdly, now the only theory that can be taught is evolution.

You (or maybe it was someone else) have said this before. It is not true. Not only is creation taught to the denigration of evolution/other scientific theories of origination in many religious strongholds of the US (particularly southern and western US), creation is even still taught in science classes in New England, traditionally a more secular area. I myself was taught about creation in public school in Connecticut (it was presented as a potentially-competing non-scientific theory).

So you discount every history book ever written? How recent does the history need to be in order for you to trust that the writers wrote it down in good faith accuracy?

I would think that it's less an issue of when it was written as it is how it was written and for what purpose. The Bible was written (or assembled) as an evangelical text, to convert and confirm the beliefs of a particular religion. It was also a later written recording of initially oral stories, as far as we can tell. The stories would most likely have been told in Hebrew or Aramaic, and were translated into Greek upon writing by scholars (as Greek was the language of Scholars, much as Latin was during much of post-Roman European history). We don't know if all the accounts survived the years between, and those who did not experience Christ's spirituality were less likely to have bothered repeating or recording their accounts of events (unless they were historians of the time, who do mention Christ, and with considerably less evangelical flair).

I don't place a whole lot of faith in history textbooks of the US written during the 50s, nor do I have much faith in John Smith's diary as an accurate account of his experience on the eastern coast of North America. Oh, I don't doubt that many of the events described happened, I just tend to doubt more that events happened as they are described, or doubt that the history is "complete."

It is not a matter of time; it is a matter of who records it, for what purpose, and how it is recorded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. ape,

To my knowledge, "science" generally accepts/theorizes only one thing: one can come to understand the forces of this universe via observation and experimentation. Various scientists at various times "generally accept(ed)" various principles and theories. As far as I know, there is no logical imperative for beginning and end for everything. For example, mathematics has a concept of infinity, and "pure" mathematics and logic are certainly in the same family. It might be true that every event has a cause, but this is not quite the same thing as postulating a beginning and an ending, and Aquinas has already used this reasoning to try and prove god, and that reasoning has been rebuffed. But let's put this discussion of assumptions of beginnings and endings away, unless you have some further argument about it you'd like to share.

Well it is more than scientific theory that the Universe is expanding. However as you say, it is only theory that the Universe will collapse at some point, as a result of it's expansion, and cease to exist. Now when and if it does end, so will your number counting on your way to prove that numbers are infinative along with mathematics and everything else.

Science cannot? That's a pretty bold claim. Have not I accept, but cannot is just unfounded assertion. I don't really see how they could figure out what caused the big bang, but then a hundred+ years ago, Charles Darwin might not have been able to figure out how anyone could find out what exactly makes animals inherit traits from their parents.

Well let's look again what fool described as being Hawking's contirbution to the understanding of the cosmos - "IIRC, The work that brought Hawking to prominence was his proof (along with someone whose name I embarrassingly forget) that time is/was concomitant with the big bang. In which case one cannot apply the concept of “before” to any events in some way prior to the big bang. So yes the big bang is "the beginning of all, including all matter, as we know it." but also the beginning of time as we know it." If Hawking is correct, and personally I would defer to him over my scant understanding of the cosmos, that time began with the creation of the universe then it would seem logical to assume that time is also confined within, and limited by, our universe just as we are. Hence is it not logical to assume that in order to escape our own universe to explore and expand our knowledge, we must also be capable of escaping the confines of time? But do we exist outside of the confines of time? I think not. And therefore I would hypotheorize that we shall never learn what exists outside of our universe. So I think that we are chained by time within our own universe and we shall never be able to do anything more than theorize as to what exists outside of it.

So if we have no evidence by which to possibly base what came prior to the big bang, from a scientific point of view it is equally likely god started it as it is that some other events took place beforehand. Since this is the case, a "creator" in the sense that it was a "being" (supernatural mover) does NOT follow from the existence of the universe -- only that there was a cause for the present state of the universe (the effect).

Quite true Andrew. However we limit ourselves, and God I think, when we use the term "being" to describe him or her. God need not be a being at all. Did not even Jesus say that God was spirit? Spirit which came and went like the wind? Does not science theorize that the big bang occured as a quantum fluctuation within an all pervasive, all encompasing energy field? So I personally do not think of God as a being at all.

As for being equally confident in science or religion: science asserts (hypothesizes), tests, and then modifies its assertions to try and reflect the results of the tests (extreme oversimplification, but the principle stands). Religion in general merely asserts. Many different religions are contradictory (in the absence of very forgiving interpretation), and most if not all will strive to show how the premises really do fit the "conclusions" of the religion. They will rarely if ever change the "conclusion" in the light of new evidence (not that most if any religions occupy a realm in which any new evidence is likely to be observed). So, to me, science in general has a lot more of my confidence than religion in general -- but that is saying nothing about particular scientific theories/branches or particular religions -- things kind of have to move on a case-by-case basis. Shall we say that I trust the methods of science far more than the methods of religion -- though I recognize that does not invalidate the conclusions of religion.

In truth God is what God is, not necessarily what any religion defines him to be. At least that is my belief. So it is not surprizing to me that there are many conflicts between the various religions as to the exact nature of God. The solution I believe is to seek out God on one's own, apart from any particular religion if indeed religion does not work for you as it does not for me. But I do see much good as well as bad which religions have brought forth to the world. And religion does work for many people and more power to them as far as I am concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, but IIRC the OT prophecies were of the end of the world, essentially. As far as I can tell, the world has not ended. The purpose for the Law -- the covenant between god and the Hebrews -- was Shalom ("peace" is one translation, IIRC -- and not the sort of peace that means "not war"). Shalom was sort of like the end of the world where the Hebrews are united with god. Sure, you can read Christianity out that metaphorically, but I really think that it's tough to say that the OT prophecy supports that reading. IANA theologist, though (nor even a particularly learned amateur), so I may be wrong here.

You misremember your education on the OT. http://www.facingthechallenge.org/otprophet.htm

You also misremember the purpose for the purpose of the Law. http://www.bible-history.com/JewishLiterat..._of_the_Law.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And if no written record (discounting the bible again) the most they will be able to do is recall that we thought him an asshole. Will they be completely convinced? If they are they're quite gullible.

So you discount every history book ever written? How recent does the history need to be in order for you to trust that the writers wrote it down in good faith accuracy?

It's not the time frame involved, it's the number of documents supporting each other, the verifiable facts (confirmed through science), and the verified physical age of the original document (when available).

In addition, it's a faith thing. The bible tells stories more outlandish and unbelieveable than my 6-year old nephew, and I don't believe him. If we were to find physical evidence of a significant amount of the stuff in the bible, I'd be more willing to take a second look (eg. writings in egypt talking about the plagues, etc)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well it is more than scientific theory that the Universe is expanding. However as you say, it is only theory that the Universe will collapse at some point, as a result of it's expansion, and cease to exist. Now when and if it does end, so will your number counting on your way to prove that numbers are infinative along with mathematics and everything else.

You're right; expansion of the universe is more like a fairly undeniable observation. The theory that it may collapse to nothing doesn't mean the end of everything to me: after all, it once expanded, right?

Well let's look again what fool described as being Hawking's contirbution to the understanding of the cosmos - "IIRC, The work that brought Hawking to prominence was his proof (along with someone whose name I embarrassingly forget) that time is/was concomitant with the big bang. In which case one cannot apply the concept of “before” to any events in some way prior to the big bang. So yes the big bang is "the beginning of all, including all matter, as we know it." but also the beginning of time as we know it." If Hawking is correct, and personally I would defer to him over my scant understanding of the cosmos, that time began with the creation of the universe then it would seem logical to assume that time is also confined within, and limited by, our universe just as we are. Hence is it not logical to assume that in order to escape our own universe to explore and expand our knowledge, we must also be capable of escaping the confines of time? But do we exist outside of the confines of time? I think not. And therefore I would hypotheorize that we shall never learn what exists outside of our universe. So I think that we are chained by time within our own universe and we shall never be able to do anything more than theorize as to what exists outside of it.

Well, let's look at what Hawking ACTUALLY did, rather than hypothesize. You might find this link helpful. To quote some relevant passages:

With Rodger Penrose, he showed that Einstein's General Theory of Relativity implied space and time would have had a beginning in the "Big Bang",

and an end in black holes.

Another speculation is that the universe has no edge or boundary in imaginary time. This would imply that the way the universe began was completely determined by the laws of science.
He currently holds the prestigious chair as the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University, which was once held by Isaac Newton. Dr. Hawking is currently working on a new theory called Open Inflation. This theory postulates that the Universe will expand forever to infinity, explains how matter was created, and resolves Einstein's equations of gravity.

Seems to me that Hawking didn't *prove* anything, except one logical conclusion that follows from Einstein's theory.

Time itself is a human concept used to measure motion (not locomotion). The passing of time is merely a measurement of the passing of motion. (It may theoretically be possible to step outside of time -- many scientists are speculating about this -- but I'm not really sure that's relevant.) Since it is designed to measure motion, any period of zero motion would require that time has "stopped." At least, that is my understanding -- anyone can feel free to correct me here; I'm not even a gifted amateur when it comes to cosmology. As I said, since time was stopped at one point and started again, who is to say it wouldn't happen a second time? Who is to say it didn't happen infinitely into the past?

Quite true Andrew. However we limit ourselves, and God I think, when we use the term "being" to describe him or her. God need not be a being at all. Did not even Jesus say that God was spirit? Spirit which came and went like the wind? Does not science theorize that the big bang occured as a quantum fluctuation within an all pervasive, all encompasing energy field? So I personally do not think of God as a being at all.

Thus, we further abstract god. Maybe god is whatever force drives gravity. Perhaps god is merely the compound of all the "laws" that govern the universe (both physical and energy, including of course laws we do not yet fully understand, but obviously exist). Once god is abstracted beyond the "being" level, I tend to cease to find god significant to me spiritually or psychologically -- god has become a creator very little different from sperm and egg taken in compound. God is then significant scientifically -- and thus, the scientific method must apply to god.

The solution I believe is to seek out God on one's own, apart from any particular religion if indeed religion does not work for you as it does not for me. But I do see much good as well as bad which religions have brought forth to the world. And religion does work for many people and more power to them as far as I am concerned.

I am somewhat perplexed at this idea of seeking god and having it "work" for you. When it comes to matters of the psychology and spirituality, we worry about what "works." In matters of if something exists or doesn't exist, what "works" for a person is irrelevant. Just because Jesus "works" for God'sGurl or Cliptin does not make them right about god's existence, or about what/how they worship (not to impinge upon GG or Cliptin).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Define "spiritual issues"? Based on the context I would assume that you would accept first hand accounts of miracles as spiritual issues. Or perhaps a personal explaination of a parable?

The books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, 1 & 2 Peter, 1,2 & 3 John and Revelations are understood to be written by people who knew Jesus personally. My memory is iffy on James. IIRC, some believe this was Jesus' brother.

Hmm...if you mean the people that recorded the books in the Gospel, then no, they did not know Christ as far as we know. They were not firsthand accounts. They are recordings of someone else's account of and account of a firsthand accout, for all we know. Or perhaps they were directly taken from one or more firsthand accounts. But the fact remains that the Gospels themselves are not firsthand accounts, nor most likely even one singular firsthand account in all of them (we can take this one step further by noting that for some of Jesus' quotes, there was no one there to record them). And John was written 70+ years after the death of Christ. Firsthand? Surely you jest.

See sections titled Author and Date:

http://www.bible-history.com/new-testament...ry_matthew.html

http://www.bible-history.com/new-testament...onary_mark.html

http://www.bible-history.com/new-testament...onary_luke.html

http://www.bible-history.com/new-testament...onary_john.html

http://www.bible-history.com/new-testament...first_john.html

http://www.bible-history.com/new-testament...econd_john.html

http://www.bible-history.com/new-testament...third_john.html

Coindentally, Second and Third John addresses the compaints of the EU readers. That is individuals grabbing power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And if no written record (discounting the bible again) the most they will be able to do is recall that we thought him an asshole. Will they be completely convinced? If they are they're quite gullible.

So you discount every history book ever written? How recent does the history need to be in order for you to trust that the writers wrote it down in good faith accuracy?

It's not the time frame involved, it's the number of documents supporting each other, the verifiable facts (confirmed through science), and the verified physical age of the original document (when available).

In addition, it's a faith thing. The bible tells stories more outlandish and unbelieveable than my 6-year old nephew, and I don't believe him. If we were to find physical evidence of a significant amount of the stuff in the bible, I'd be more willing to take a second look (eg. writings in egypt talking about the plagues, etc)

What are the Dead Sea Scrolls?

And more generally... http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/a...thenticity.html

Accurate Biblical Descriptions of Scientific Principles http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/s...iencebible.html

Evidence of the plagues:

http://www.northforest.com/archaeology/mos...s.html#plague10

http://www.northforest.com/archaeology/moses.html#weak

http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/featur...ures/exodus.php

Taking a second look is all anyone can ask.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anything escape a black hole? What leads you to believe another "big bang" would result from a black hole?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am somewhat perplexed at this idea of seeking god and having it "work" for you.  When it comes to matters of the psychology and spirituality, we worry about what "works."  In matters of if something exists or doesn't exist, what "works" for a person is irrelevant.  Just because Jesus "works" for God'sGurl or Cliptin does not make them right about god's existence, or about what/how they worship (not to impinge upon GG or Cliptin).

Yeah you could extrapolate the idea to Jim Jones of '60s demise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll go the good professor one better on this: saying that the life of the flesh is in the blood is akin to saying the life of the fire is in the oxygen (or the fuel, or the heat -- the three things required for fire, known as the "fire triangle"). The life of the flesh is in far more than just the blood, as we can see that someone can die, even though their blood still flows.

blood flows from your heart. once your heart stops (blood stops flowing) you die.

In addition, it's a faith thing. The bible tells stories more outlandish and unbelieveable than my 6-year old nephew, and I don't believe him. If we were to find physical evidence of a significant amount of the stuff in the bible, I'd be more willing to take a second look (eg. writings in egypt talking about the plagues, etc)

if you beilieve that there is a higher being than us, can not that higher Being do anything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Ape,

Time itself is a human concept used to measure motion (not locomotion). The passing of time is merely a measurement of the passing of motion. (It may theoretically be possible to step outside of time -- many scientists are speculating about this -- but I'm not really sure that's relevant.) Since it is designed to measure motion, any period of zero motion would require that time has "stopped." At least, that is my understanding -- anyone can feel free to correct me here; I'm not even a gifted amateur when it comes to cosmology. As I said, since time was stopped at one point and started again, who is to say it wouldn't happen a second time? Who is to say it didn't happen infinitely into the past?

I don't see how time can merely be a human concept any more than reality is. I am not aware of any point at which time has ever stopped. If you are referring to what was before the big bang, then I was given to understand that there no time prior to that event. We as humans have created the word "time" but not the reality of it.

Thus, we further abstract god. Maybe god is whatever force drives gravity. Perhaps god is merely the compound of all the "laws" that govern the universe (both physical and energy, including of course laws we do not yet fully understand, but obviously exist). Once god is abstracted beyond the "being" level, I tend to cease to find god significant to me spiritually or psychologically -- god has become a creator very little different from sperm and egg taken in compound. God is then significant scientifically -- and thus, the scientific method must apply to god.

Well perhaps your understanding of God has further been abstracted but not mine I can assure you. It is difficult as human beings to relate to a God who is not a "being". Perhaps this is why we do think of him as such. So while I may relate more easily to God personally as a "being", I do not necessarily believe him to be such. And truthfully, it does not matter what form he really is. What matters is that we understand his power and that we keep ourselves in perspective.

I am somewhat perplexed at this idea of seeking god and having it "work" for you. When it comes to matters of the psychology and spirituality, we worry about what "works." In matters of if something exists or doesn't exist, what "works" for a person is irrelevant. Just because Jesus "works" for God'sGurl or Cliptin does not make them right about god's existence, or about what/how they worship (not to impinge upon GG or Cliptin).

I understand what you are saying. But if there is a common denominator between what works for God'sGurl, Clipton, myself and everyone else who believes, then perhaps it is not so perplexing an idea as you imagine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see how time can merely be a human concept any more than reality is. I am not aware of any point at which time has ever stopped. If you are referring to what was before the big bang, then I was given to understand that there no time prior to that event. We as humans have created the word "time" but not the reality of it.

I'm not sure I want to continue this part of the discussion -- I really don't know enough about it to discuss. I just gave you my understanding of it, but in searching around a bit, it appears that "what time is" is under some contention. So I'll just drop that point. :unsure:

Well perhaps your understanding of God has further been abstracted but not mine I can assure you. It is difficult as human beings to relate to a God who is not a "being".  Perhaps this is why we do think of him as such. So while I may relate more easily to God personally as a "being", I do not necessarily believe him to be such. And truthfully, it does not matter what form he really is. What matters is that we understand his power and that we keep ourselves in perspective.

Ah, I think I understand your point a bit better now. It doesn't really make more sense, since I really think "god" connotes a being. Otherwise, it would just be a force, right?

I understand what you are saying.  But if there is a common denominator between what works for God'sGurl, Clipton, myself and everyone else who believes, then perhaps it is not so perplexing an idea as you imagine.

Which common denominator would that be? Just a belief in something beyond the "natural"? Or specifically, a god?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now