Scientific proof that God exists?

[BADecker]

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.
 

Chuckle. This is why we see all kinds of people all over the place who are 500 years old, or a thousand, or 2,000, etc.  It's because people can save themselves. It's because the fact that they grow old and die is because they want to.

People can do anything, right? Because they are God, right? People who shoot other people with a gun and kill them, are people who can do it. And the people who get shot by them are the people who can get shot, right? People who get shot just love to get shot. That's why they do it, because they are God and have control over their own lives. They don't need a Savior, because they don't have anything to be saved from, since they caused themselves to get shot.

You poor deluded blakjag. Oops! I shouldn't say it that way, since you have control over your own life, and so want to be deluded. You wonderful, happy blakjag, so good at controlling yourself right into delusion.

[1715694850]

1715694850

[1715694850]

1715694850

[1715694850]

1715694850

[grendel25]

The essence of god is mysterious.  Science itself could be argued as proof of god or so could this staple lodged in my finger (don't ask).  It doesn't matter and it matter completely.  But really it's mind over matter.  If you don't mind, it don't matter.  And if it matters, be mindful. 

But really, even when science does prove any aspect of god there is still more to prove.  The "god" particle is a farce because more particles will be discovered.  Humans just always seek some sense of closure when the reality is infinite and unclosable.

So my best answer would be yes and no and maybe, perhaps, definitely and wait until tomorrow.

[BADecker]

The essence of god is mysterious.  Science itself could be argued as proof of god or so could this staple lodged in my finger (don't ask).  It doesn't matter and it matter completely.  But really it's mind over matter.  If you don't mind, it don't matter.  And if it matters, be mindful. 

But really, even when science does prove any aspect of god there is still more to prove.  The "god" particle is a farce because more particles will be discovered.  Humans just always seek some sense of closure when the reality is infinite and unclosable.

So my best answer would be yes and no and maybe, perhaps, definitely and wait until tomorrow.

LOL !  Hope your finger is okay.

We still don't know for a fact that there isn't just one particle in the whole universe, and that's all there is. We don't know if it is this particle zooming throughout the dimensions at super-high speeds and in various ways, to actually form what looks and feels like all the rest of the particles and energies that exist in the universe. Someday we may know. But we don't know one way or the other for sure, yet.

[bl4kjaguar]

Very interesting to me that BADecker asserts the integrity of his bible
and Promotes that book with eight points that Suggest it is the WORD of God--
But when I show BADecker that those points are more strongly supportive of Phoenix Journals
He does not address the issue at hand.

BADecker, it seems that you don't understand that truth which you slandered; my faith/truth is not about being a god but knowing God and truth.

God dwells within the temple that is you, thus the saving comes from yourself; you will find the proof of God within you.

Gnostic Christianity has a claim to authentic faith that is at least as valid; there is actually no proof that the Doctrine of Saul is the same as the teachings of Emmanuel.

The basis of salvation in mainstream Christianity is the doctrine of one who was never a follower of Emmanuel and who by his own account remained a Pharisee his whole life.

[BADecker]

Very interesting to me that BADecker asserts the integrity of his bible
and Promotes that book with eight points that Suggest it is the WORD of God--
But when I show BADecker that those points are more strongly supportive of Phoenix Journals
He does not address the issue at hand.

BADecker, it seems that you don't understand that truth which you slandered; my faith/truth is not about being a god but knowing God and truth.

God dwells within the temple that is you, thus the saving comes from yourself; you will find the proof of God within you.

Gnostic Christianity has a claim to authentic faith that is at least as valid; there is actually no proof that the Doctrine of Saul is the same as the teachings of Emmanuel.

The basis of salvation in mainstream Christianity is the doctrine of one who was never a follower of Emmanuel and who by his own account remained a Pharisee his whole life.

Please clarify what you are saying here. It is very difficult understanding you.

[bl4kjaguar]

There is actually no proof that the Doctrine of Saul is the same as the teachings of Emmanuel.

The basis of salvation in mainstream Christianity is the doctrine of one who was never a follower of Emmanuel and who by his own account remained a Pharisee his whole life.

I am questioning the faith promoted by Saul, who was a Pharisee all his Life.

So by what criteria should we follow Saul if he was never a follower of Christ? Emmanuel (Jesus) warned us about the teachings of Pharisees and Saul was a Pharisee for all of his Life, as far as we know. These are two strong reasons to reject  The doctrine of Saul.

[grendel25]

The essence of god is mysterious.  Science itself could be argued as proof of god or so could this staple lodged in my finger (don't ask).  It doesn't matter and it matter completely.  But really it's mind over matter.  If you don't mind, it don't matter.  And if it matters, be mindful. 

But really, even when science does prove any aspect of god there is still more to prove.  The "god" particle is a farce because more particles will be discovered.  Humans just always seek some sense of closure when the reality is infinite and unclosable.

So my best answer would be yes and no and maybe, perhaps, definitely and wait until tomorrow.

LOL !  Hope your finger is okay.

We still don't know for a fact that there isn't just one particle in the whole universe, and that's all there is. We don't know if it is this particle zooming throughout the dimensions at super-high speeds and in various ways, to actually form what looks and feels like all the rest of the particles and energies that exist in the universe. Someday we may know. But we don't know one way or the other for sure, yet.

Well I agree with your last sentence anyways!  We're only as good as our measuring equipment.  When they measure the Higgs Boson so called "god particle" it is naive to think that they have found the ultimate particle.  They will find more and more.

[BADecker]

There is actually no proof that the Doctrine of Saul is the same as the teachings of Emmanuel.

The basis of salvation in mainstream Christianity is the doctrine of one who was never a follower of Emmanuel and who by his own account remained a Pharisee his whole life.

I am questioning the faith promoted by Saul, who was a Pharisee all his Life.

So by what criteria should we follow Saul if he was never a follower of Christ? Emmanuel (Jesus) warned us about the teachings of Pharisees and Saul was a Pharisee for all of his Life, as far as we know. These are two strong reasons to reject  The doctrine of Saul.

I might ask an "if" question also. What kinds of rockets should we use to go to the moon IF the moon is really made of green cheese. This question is not for answering. It is one of untold millions of goofy questions that can be asked for nothing.

Your questions about somebody you call Saul are much the same. They are among the millions of possible questions that are not complete enough to be answered. Even if it were complete enough to be answered, it probably belongs to the realm of totally useless questions.

For example. If you asked, "Which hand do you use to catch a bitcoin that you tossed into the air?" who knows what such a question might mean? Bitcoins are not really coins. Certainly they can't be tossed into the air. If someone actually had a bitcoin that was like a coin, why would he toss it into the air in the first place? The whole question is one that simply sits there to waste space and time.

Your questions, above, are similar. There isn't enough info in them to know who you are talking about, why you are talking about him (if it happens that this Saul is a man), why you are asking the questions, and what benefit there might be in trying to answer.

Since most of your questions are like this, simple questions that only float in the air, there really isn't any way to make conversation. Either you type words simply for the fun of typing, or else you try to engage in conversation so that you can manipulate whomever you are talking to. The only reason I respond to you anymore is, since you can type, you are obviously human or human backed. And I empathize with the human part of humans, though not always their childishness, nor their attempts at manipulating people.

So, perhaps if you come up with questions that can be answered, I might play the game with you a little. Other than that, this is the best I know how to do.

[BADecker]

The essence of god is mysterious.  Science itself could be argued as proof of god or so could this staple lodged in my finger (don't ask).  It doesn't matter and it matter completely.  But really it's mind over matter.  If you don't mind, it don't matter.  And if it matters, be mindful.  

But really, even when science does prove any aspect of god there is still more to prove.  The "god" particle is a farce because more particles will be discovered.  Humans just always seek some sense of closure when the reality is infinite and unclosable.

So my best answer would be yes and no and maybe, perhaps, definitely and wait until tomorrow.

LOL !  Hope your finger is okay.

We still don't know for a fact that there isn't just one particle in the whole universe, and that's all there is. We don't know if it is this particle zooming throughout the dimensions at super-high speeds and in various ways, to actually form what looks and feels like all the rest of the particles and energies that exist in the universe. Someday we may know. But we don't know one way or the other for sure, yet.

Well I agree with your last sentence anyways!  We're only as good as our measuring equipment.  When they measure the Higgs Boson so called "god particle" it is naive to think that they have found the ultimate particle.  They will find more and more.

I don't think that Hawking dubbed the Higgs Boson the "god particle" because he thought it had anything to do with some kind of god or god attribute.

Yes. We will find more. And since we are only scratching the surface in examining the dimensions, we may find all kinds of things that are neither particle or wave.



EDIT: One of my big questions is: "Do we know for a fact that we are not creating some of these particles rather than simply finding them?"

[bl4kjaguar]

There is actually no proof that the Doctrine of Saul is the same as the teachings of Emmanuel.

The basis of salvation in mainstream Christianity is the doctrine of one who was never a follower of Emmanuel and who by his own account remained a Pharisee his whole life.

I am questioning the faith promoted by Saul, who was a Pharisee all his Life.

So by what criteria should we follow Saul if he was never a follower of Christ? Emmanuel (Jesus) warned us about the teachings of Pharisees and Saul was a Pharisee for all of his Life, as far as we know. These are two strong reasons to reject  The doctrine of Saul.

.

BADecker, I cannot see where your confusion lies; it is obvious which Saul is being referred to. We have mentioned his name many times, and repeatedly I have reminded you that Saul was not "a follower of Christ", which is historical fact. Now after all of this can you say that Saul promotes a doctrine that is the same as that of Christ?? If you can say that (and you did), by what criteria do you judge the writings of Saul to be authentic faith? Listen to what Emmanuel said in Matt. 23 and recognize that "Saul of Taurus" is a Pharisee as per his own confession.

There isn't enough info in them to know who you are talking about, why you are talking about him (if it happens that this Saul is a man), why you are asking the questions, and what benefit there might be in trying to answer.

Since most of your questions are like this

[bl4kjaguar]

If you care not for authentic faith then by all means keep following Pharisee Saul; for me, the fact that he was always a Pharisee and never saw/heard Christ indicates that he is not the right speaker for me. I would Prefer to hear the gospel and good news from one who was very close to Christ while He was alive (see Phoenix Journal #2).

So that is why I ask you for the criteria by which you discern that Saul has the authentic teaching; it is a fact that he never "followed" Christ.

[BADecker]

If you really are talking about Paul who wrote much of the New Testament, then all you need do is compare what he wrote against what Jesus said in the Gospels of the New Testament to see that there is much agreement between the two. Parts that don't seem to agree, have their agreement in the understanding of the times and who the both of them were speaking/writing to.

Paul continually says that he supports Jesus, is in favor of Jesus, is trying to do the work that Jesus did, is trying to do the work Jesus told him to do, and is trying to extend God's kingdom the same as Jesus was.


You know that I believe the Bible is the Word of God. I understand that you don't think the Bible is the Word of God, or at least not all of it. So, why do you keep on questioning me about things regarding Paul and Jesus? We don't have the same sources for our beliefs and opinions. Do you simply like to play with words? Do you like to find people to argue with?

Oh I get it. You have been reading the Phoenix Journals and they are driving you crazy.

[BADecker]

Blakjag, here is one of the major fallacies in your thinking, and in that of the Phoenix Journals. This thinking is that people are God in the way that they give themselves eternal life, that they don't need a savior from death.

The evidence all around us shows that all people die.

Even if somebody steps forward who is 200-years-old, he does not have the youthfulness of a 20-year-old. Even if he has some youthfulness, he is still old-looking in some ways. He is dying, and has only found ways to extend his life temporarily.

If people had the ability to raise themselves from the dead, or if they had the ability to remain alive, some of them would have done it by now. The evidence is that nobody is doing it.

Few people like the idea of dying. If they could keep themselves alive, they would. If they could raise themselves from the dead, they would. They aren't doing it because they can't.

Even if there is a promise of some kind, that people will be able to raise themselves from the dead in the future, sometime, where is the strength in that promise? There isn't any strength other than a bunch of talk.

Jesus of the Bible did the actual raising from the dead at least twice that we know about. The evidence is in the writings of the Gospels, records of eye witness accounts of the things that Jesus did.

In addition, Jesus did all kinds of other miracles besides raising people from the dead, miracles that we don't see much of these days, miracles that when done these days only lasts if they are done in the Name of the Jesus of the Bible.

There is strength in accepting that Jesus is the Savior we need. The strength is in the promise of resurrection as listed in the New Testament and the Old.

Since the evidence all around us is that we can't save ourselves, we need a Savior. Jesus of the Bible is that Savior.

Phoenix Journals = talk, no evidence.
Bible = talk, evidence in the miracles that Jesus did.

[bl4kjaguar]

Jesus said that Pharisees are evil.
Jesus said love thy neighbor as thyself and love God.
You do not care to understand history from my perspective because you have faith in authorities, not own discernment.

What Hatonn and Sananda talk about is obviously by far a more logical and comprehensive view.

[bl4kjaguar]

Paul admits to being a Pharisee in his own writings.
Christ said that Pharisees are evil Matt. 23.

This indicates to anyone of sound mind that Christ does not endorse Saul.

[duckydonald]

When people are about to die, thats when  they hope or feel God near.  Even these so called Atheist

[BADecker]

Paul admits to being a Pharisee in his own writings.
Christ said that Pharisees are evil Matt. 23.

This indicates to anyone of sound mind that Christ does not endorse Saul.

Finally. Finally you admit that the Christ of the Bible is "Christ."

Jesus was talking about the leaders of the Pharisees, a position Paul never made it to.

Even if Paul did make it to a leadership position, Luke explains in the Acts of the Apostles how Paul was specially called by Jesus, on the road to Damascus, to do work for God the right way.

Is that all you have been yammering about all this time with Saul and the Pharisees?

[bl4kjaguar]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Christianity

So a messenger Paul was specially called to Promote the "right story" about Jesus/Emmanuel.
How convenient that this story forbids you to investigate any other perspective.

Actually modern scholarship on Paul's writings indicates that his doctrine is not always in harmony with the Gospels.

[BADecker]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Christianity

So a messenger Paul was specially called to Promote the "right story" about Jesus/Emmanuel.
How convenient that this story forbids you to investigate any other perspective.

Actually modern scholarship on Paul's writings indicates that his doctrine is not always in harmony with the Gospels.

This is the exact reason for the Council of Nicea which weeded out a whole bunch of worse writings.

You can take anything and twist it so that it doesn't harmonize with something else. Yet, both the Gospels and the Letters of Paul are correct, in the context, and with the things that they are trying to express, even though they may not seem to harmonize to the thinking of some people.

This is the exact reason that there is no room for something like the Phoenix Chronicles or whatever you call them. There is even less harmony among them, and far less harmony when you try to harmonize them with the Bible. One doesn't need to read them to realize this. One only need realize that, generally speaking, it is this way with all complicated, complex, convoluted writings.

[bl4kjaguar]

We don't have the same sources for our beliefs and opinions.
Oh I get it. You have been reading the Phoenix Journals and they are driving you crazy.

Oh I get it, I am different in my belief so I must be crazy and my God is really the devil. Well that is exactly what you have said to me in this thread and it does not sound like civilized Christian behavior to me!