Scientific proof that God exists?

[frankenmint]

On the face of it, I disagree that "the thread of salvation through the Messiah runs throughout the whole" of the Bible. I found that the Dead Sea Scrolls support my position:

The messiah, according to Jewish [and early Christian] belief, was not a God that would deliver his people by clearing their way to heaven. The messiah was to be an empowered King who would destroy the enemies of the Jews and regain their Holy Land.

Yet the Messiah was for everyone who believed. So how would an earthly kingship be available to those who had passed already? People want it now. So, they misinterpret a lot.

The Revelation in the Bible sets it out rather plainly in some ways. The book of Hebrews is another that helps. St. Paul's writings suggest that we don't know what form we are going to take in Heaven.

You know, you base everything off a book that was written when people knew squat about science.  Don't you understand that?  Your house is built on a foundation of cards.

You know? The Bosnian pyramids show that the people of Atlantis knew a whole lot more about science than we give them credit for. And some of their knowledge was so different from ours that we are just beginning to relearn it.

Doesn't change the point I just made.  Everything you believe, and all your arguments, are based off a book that was written when people thought the sun raced across the sky on a chariot.  Those wrong beliefs and ideals are the bible.

I'd have more respect for you people if you had any kind of new evidence in the last 2,000 years.

 

You say "people" like you say "scientists." What I mean is, you can find loads of people who believe all different kinds of things, just like you can find many scientists who understand the same evidence in many different ways.

How does that answers to the fact that you base your feelings off a 2000 years book?
The guys back then would have thought the smartphone I'm writing this post on is godly if they have had any chance to see it.

The book is not entirely 2000 years old. The first two chapters of in may go all the way back to the beginning, 6000 years ago. If not that far, then they were probably written by Abraham from the verbal tradition that had been passed down. In addition, the first 5 books go back 3500.

And don't pick on the verbal tradition. Those guys had far better memory than we do. And if you say the earth is more than 6000 years old, we don't know that, because the whole time dimension was different before the Great Flood, and the electromagnetic spectrum acted differently, as well.

Thought it was after Methuselah that God decided "okay im cool lets kill off these stupid humans" 

[1713554519]

1713554519

[1713554519]

1713554519

[1713554519]

1713554519

[1713554519]

1713554519

[1713554519]

1713554519

[username18333]

One can render determinations about others out of moral nihilism, that is, render wholly arbitrary determinations upon them.

Man's humanness did not emerge by refusing Man's animal heritage, but upon an extension of what it is.

If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. Man is hardly likely to render arbitrary determinations upon himself!

There is a nature beyond the animal: the hole. (In truth, black hole exemplify being here.)

And, for that, it may be said that humanity is, indeed, an extension of beast; it is an extension of that mad belligerence that is beast.

[bl4kjaguar]

One can render determinations about others out of moral nihilism, that is, render wholly arbitrary determinations upon them.

Man's humanness did not emerge by refusing Man's animal heritage, but upon an extension of what it is.

If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. Man is hardly likely to render arbitrary determinations upon himself!

There is a nature beyond the animal: the hole. (In truth, black hole exemplify being here.)

Perhaps, but Man's humanness is an extension of his animal heritage; it is not an extension of a hole.

[BADecker]

As a prelude to recognizing the existence of God, one must recognize that people live and thrive on faith.

----------

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

faith
[feyth]

noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing:
faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof:
He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion:
the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.:
to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief:
the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.:
Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.:
He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

----------

Who among people knows for an absolute fact what is going to happen at any time in the future?

Personally, experience has taught me that I can feel confident that some things will happen. Yet, some of the time I have been wrong. Since I didn't know then that I was going to be wrong when I was wrong, how do I know that I am not going to be wrong now?

The point? I live by faith. That faith is based on my experience of the way things work in life and the universe. When I am wrong, my experience is tweaked a little, so that the next time circumstances are similar to something I have experienced, the expectations of my faith are also different. I still don't know for a fact what will happen any given moment. So, I live by faith that my experience has provided me with enough information to make correct decisions, and to be comfortable in life.

Until I am humble enough to recognize that I live by faith, and that my experiences don't cover all situations and circumstances, I'm never going to be able to find REAL proof for God or anything else. I am only going to wind up deluding myself into beliefs that may or may not be true.

[BADecker]

Thought it was after Methuselah that God decided "okay im cool lets kill off these stupid humans" 

Take a look at what the Bible - the best source we have for this - says. God did it because wickedness increased throughout the world beyond a certain point.

Science is showing us that there is structure in nature. Science is showing us that nature adapts to certain structural changes. Science also shows us that nature collapses in areas where the structural changes are too great. The science of psychology shows us that people go mad if their psychological structure gets too far out of whack from what it should be naturally. So, why is science so unwilling to look at the spiritual, structures in the universe? It's in spiritual structures that we see hints of God.

[Und3rd0g]

Why is this conversation even happening?!?!?   Believe what you want to believe.  Don't believe what you don't want to believe.   Both sides are right!  It's a personal thing folks...

[username18333]

Thought it was after Methuselah that God decided "okay im cool lets kill off these stupid humans" 

Take a look at what the Bible - the best source we have for this - says. God did it because wickedness increased throughout the world beyond a certain point.

Science is showing us that there is structure in nature. Science is showing us that nature adapts to certain structural changes. Science also shows us that nature collapses in areas where the structural changes are too great. The science of psychology shows us that people go mad if their psychological structure gets too far out of whack from what it should be naturally. So, why is science so unwilling to look at the spiritual, structures in the universe? It's in spiritual structures that we see hints of God.

Is it not curious that this absence of entropy termed "structure" would so frequently prove succumb to that?

[username18333]

Why is this conversation even happening?!?!?   Believe what you want to believe.  Don't believe what you don't want to believe.   Both sides are right!  It's a personal thing folks...

For the sensibility of the world and abdication of "Man."

[BADecker]

One can render determinations about others out of moral nihilism, that is, render wholly arbitrary determinations upon them.

Considering that, how is "religion" necessary?

There are several things that are virtually necessary in life for a healthy person to live. Everyone needs air to breathe, water to drink (or at least to be absorbed through the food he/she eats), and food. In certain climates, people need clothing and shelter.

Since a person isn't completely full of all possible experience, he is going to find things in life that will be different than what he expected. Because of this, people live by faith, faith in nature, faith in their experiences, and if they understand about God, faith in God.

In its simplest form, religion is only a combining of faith and experience. Religion is how one acts based on what he believes, which is based on his imperfect and incomplete experience. His religion changes slightly with each new experience. And nobody's personal religion is exactly the same as that of anybody else. However, because ALL people have the same, basic needs in life, each person's religion is similar to that of every other person, down deep, at the core of their being.

[BADecker]

Thought it was after Methuselah that God decided "okay im cool lets kill off these stupid humans" 

Take a look at what the Bible - the best source we have for this - says. God did it because wickedness increased throughout the world beyond a certain point.

Science is showing us that there is structure in nature. Science is showing us that nature adapts to certain structural changes. Science also shows us that nature collapses in areas where the structural changes are too great. The science of psychology shows us that people go mad if their psychological structure gets too far out of whack from what it should be naturally. So, why is science so unwilling to look at the spiritual, structures in the universe? It's in spiritual structures that we see hints of God.

Is it not curious that this absence of entropy termed "structure" would so frequently prove succumb to that?

Not sure what you mean, exactly. But consider this fanciful thought.

Imagine for a moment that God exists, and that He is very powerful, way beyond understanding. Imagine, also, that for His own purposes He sees you and is even aware of your thinking.

So, one day you happen to be a bit more favorable of Him in your thoughts. For whatever reason (or non-reason) you simply think good thoughts about God one day. God wasn't expecting this from you (because He designed people to be great enough that He doesn't quite know what people will think from day to day). So, God goes all the way back to the beginning of creation, and tweaks it and time so that things match your feelings for the day. And He does this kind of thing on a regular basis, not only for you, but for all people. People never know that God does this, because they exist inside the changes as though it had never been any other way.

The point? We don't know how collapses caused by entropy are upholding the general structure. For example. Modern medicine has shown that as a person gets older, and as his immune system wears out, certain parts of the immune system kick in to cover areas that other parts have failed in. The immune system is extremely complex. Yet, over time it fails, and the person dies.

A similar thing is happening with the universe. Because of the complexity of the universe, we simply don't see it easily. But we see it when we examine the fossil record and see that there are only about a third of the plants and animals still around than there used to be. Life is dying off, becoming extinct. Entropy, but a very slow one.

The whole thing acts according to structure. Yet the structure is dissolving.

[BADecker]

One can render determinations about others out of moral nihilism, that is, render wholly arbitrary determinations upon them.

Considering that, how is "religion" necessary?

There are several things that are virtually necessary in life for a healthy person to live. Everyone needs air to breathe, water to drink (or at least to be absorbed through the food he/she eats), and food. In certain climates, people need clothing and shelter.

Since a person isn't completely full of all possible experience, he is going to find things in life that will be different than what he expected. Because of this, people live by faith, faith in nature, faith in their experiences, and if they understand about God, faith in God.

In its simplest form, religion is only a combining of faith and experience. Religion is how one acts based on what he believes, which is based on his imperfect and incomplete experience. His religion changes slightly with each new experience. And nobody's personal religion is exactly the same as that of anybody else. However, because ALL people have the same, basic needs in life, each person's religion is similar to that of every other person, down deep, at the core of their being.

What you term "health," your YHWH, he terms "2."

At our core, you and I, we have the same basic needs in life: air, water, food, clothing, shelter. Yet our experiences and training are different enough that I haven't been able to determine what you mean by what you say.

[BADecker]

Look at my signature below.

Which programming language is that? Or are you AI? 

[bl4kjaguar]

One can render determinations about others out of moral nihilism, that is, render wholly arbitrary determinations upon them.

Man's humanness did not emerge by refusing Man's animal heritage, but upon an extension of what it is.

If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. Man is hardly likely to render arbitrary determinations upon himself!

There is a nature beyond the animal: the hole. (In truth, black hole exemplify being here.)

Perhaps, but Man's humanness is an extension of his animal heritage; it is not an extension of a hole.

See the updated post.

I will quote at length from "The Nature of Personal Reality"; the above bold quote is from the same book:

The exquisite, precise and concentrated focus of your conscious mind is quite necessary in physical life. It is because of this highly selective quality that you can "tune into" the particular range of activity that is physical.

In their own way, animals also possess this selective consciousness. They also focus their attention in very specific directions, perceiving from a vast general field of perception stimuli that is "recognized" and accepted in an organized manner.

When a man or a woman feels no connection between personal reality and experience and the surrounding world, then s/he loses even an animal's sense of pure competence and belonging.

Animals have a sense of justice that you do not understand, and built-in to that innocent sense of integrity there is a biological compassion, understood at the deepest cellular levels.

Yes, indeed.

In your terms man is an animal, rising out of himself, from himself evolving certain animal capacities to their utmost; not forming new physical specializations of body any longer, but creating from his needs, desires and blessed natural aggressiveness inner structures having to do with values, space and time. To varying degrees this same impetus resides throughout all creaturehood.

Your beliefs form your reality, shaping your life and all of its conditions.

Therefore, it is your moral nihilism that will shape your reality, not the other way around. The animals are not nihilists, nor does man have a need for such an inner structure. Moral nihilism appears to be a rebellion against man's heritage.

[username18333]

One can render determinations about others out of moral nihilism, that is, render wholly arbitrary determinations upon them.

Man's humanness did not emerge by refusing Man's animal heritage, but upon an extension of what it is.

If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. Man is hardly likely to render arbitrary determinations upon himself!

There is a nature beyond the animal: the hole. (In truth, black hole exemplify being here.)

Perhaps, but Man's humanness is an extension of his animal heritage; it is not an extension of a hole.

See the updated post.

I will quote at length from "The Nature of Personal Reality"; the above bold quote is from the same book:

The exquisite, precise and concentrated focus of your conscious mind is quite necessary in physical life. It is because of this highly selective quality that you can "tune into" the particular range of activity that is physical.

In their own way, animals also possess this selective consciousness. They also focus their attention in very specific directions, perceiving from a vast general field of perception stimuli that is "recognized" and accepted in an organized manner.

When a man or a woman feels no connection between personal reality and experience and the surrounding world, then s/he loses even an animal's sense of pure competence and belonging.

Animals have a sense of justice that you do not understand, and built-in to that innocent sense of integrity there is a biological compassion, understood at the deepest cellular levels.

Yes, indeed.

In your terms man is an animal, rising out of himself, from himself evolving certain animal capacities to their utmost; not forming new physical specializations of body any longer, but creating from his needs, desires and blessed natural aggressiveness inner structures having to do with values, space and time. To varying degrees this same impetus resides throughout all creaturehood.

Your beliefs form your reality, shaping your life and all of its conditions.

Therefore, it is your moral nihilism that will shape your reality, not the other way around. The animals are not nihilists, nor does man have a need for such an inner structure. Moral nihilism appears to be a rebellion against man's heritage.

I'm an entropist claiming "man's heritage" rebellion against the fundamental tendency.

[username18333]

Look at my signature below.

Which programming language is that? Or are you AI?  

What was meant is that YHWH is necessarily entropy anemic: his angels may make no determination without him, and his humans may determine but within the confines of nature and nurture.

This anemia is necessary for his being that constant god he is. (In truth, though we may say, "I am one who were," he may say, "I am who am.")

[bl4kjaguar]

Look at my signature below.

Which programming language is that? Or are you AI?  

What was meant is that YHWH is necessarily entropy anemic: his angels may make no determination without him, and his humans may determine but within the confines of nature and nurture. This anemia is necessary for his being that constant god he aspires to be.

(In truth, though we may say, "I am one who were," he may say, "I am who am.")

Who are you to say what angels can or cannot do?
Where is your reasoning?
You are going to sit here and tell us what God is aspiring to be?
I do not think you know the half of it.

[username18333]

Look at my signature below.

Which programming language is that? Or are you AI?  

What was meant is that YHWH is necessarily entropy anemic: his angels may make no determination without him, and his humans may determine but within the confines of nature and nurture. This anemia is necessary for his being that constant god he aspires to be.

(In truth, though we may say, "I am one who were," he may say, "I am who am.")

Who are you to say what angels can or cannot do?
Where is your reasoning?
You are going to sit here and tell us what God is aspiring to be?
I do not think you know the half of it.

(That post has been updated.)

Within his Book of Job, even his satan had to request of him permission to proceed about trying Job.

[bl4kjaguar]

One can render determinations about others out of moral nihilism, that is, render wholly arbitrary determinations upon them.

Man's humanness did not emerge by refusing Man's animal heritage, but upon an extension of what it is.

If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. Man is hardly likely to render arbitrary determinations upon himself!

There is a nature beyond the animal: the hole. (In truth, black hole exemplify being here.)

Perhaps, but Man's humanness is an extension of his animal heritage; it is not an extension of a hole.

See the updated post.

I will quote at length from "The Nature of Personal Reality"; the above bold quote is from the same book:

The exquisite, precise and concentrated focus of your conscious mind is quite necessary in physical life. It is because of this highly selective quality that you can "tune into" the particular range of activity that is physical.

In their own way, animals also possess this selective consciousness. They also focus their attention in very specific directions, perceiving from a vast general field of perception stimuli that is "recognized" and accepted in an organized manner.

When a man or a woman feels no connection between personal reality and experience and the surrounding world, then s/he loses even an animal's sense of pure competence and belonging.

Animals have a sense of justice that you do not understand, and built-in to that innocent sense of integrity there is a biological compassion, understood at the deepest cellular levels.

Yes, indeed.

In your terms man is an animal, rising out of himself, from himself evolving certain animal capacities to their utmost; not forming new physical specializations of body any longer, but creating from his needs, desires and blessed natural aggressiveness inner structures having to do with values, space and time. To varying degrees this same impetus resides throughout all creaturehood.

Your beliefs form your reality, shaping your life and all of its conditions.

Therefore, it is your moral nihilism that will shape your reality, not the other way around. The animals are not nihilists, nor does man have a need for such an inner structure. Moral nihilism appears to be a rebellion against man's heritage.

I'm an entropist claiming "man's heritage" rebellion against the fundamental tendency.

Hmmmm, interesting; could you say some more about this?
Where is it all headed?

[username18333]

(There is a more complete explanation of the fundamental tendency in one of my previous posts. Review it for more information specific about the tendency.)

Within entropism, there is a sort of "fundamental tendency" (that is, a critical tendency from which everything* hails). This tendency is reasoned, from solipsism, to be an absolute tendency to become less orderly.

Entropy manifests itself within beasts as at least Siddhartha's Five Sufferings: birth, aging, illness, death, and parting. What you referred to as being "man's heritage" stands in direct opposition to these sufferings and, therefore, in direct opposition of that tendency whereby they are. (For this, it is said to be "rebellion" there-against.)




* The way this is used is atypical. Review entropism's fundamental tendency to help ensure comprehension.

[the joint]

Seems to me like what you've done here is define `a priori`, which is fine.

Then you go on to say that pure positivism leads to a paradox.  Ok.

I don't see where you've connected this to any 1000s-of-years-old ideas and what you wrote certainly doesn't look like a proof.

Anyway, I'm not one of the people who said that science can explain everything.  But this is a far cry from what you said above "scientific method is based on invalid assumptions".

For me, there's a whole lot of distance between "science can explain everything" (which I reject) and "science can't explain anything" (which I also reject).

I defined a priori because it isn't a commonly known term, and because it reminds us that empirical knowledge isn't the only kind of knowledge.

You can Google "sameness in difference" and you'll get a ton of websites to choose from.  What I don't know is the source origin, but certainly Plato and other philosophers have referenced the idea.  

The proof is there and it's good enough.  It's also very simple, and this is fine.  Certain logical truths can prevent us from a futile empirical search for something we already know is impossible.  For example, we know that it's impossible to empirically find something that isn't itself because of the law of identity (e.g. A = A).  So, we know that we can stop our search for something that isn't itself before we even get started looking for it.  Similarly, the sameness in difference principle shows us that we can never formulate a truly comprehensive theory of anything without also considering the ways that subjective/observer information helps to define everything.