Scientific proof that God exists?

[bl4kjaguar]

There is a unique power in the Bible.

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

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

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

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

[bl4kjaguar]

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

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

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

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

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

[BADecker]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seems to me that there is one simple, major point either missing from the above, or else not elevated to the position that it actually holds. This is the fact that all observation, and investigation through observation, shows a major, basic quality about everything that is observed: cause and effect, action and reaction. Nothing that we observe or have observed comes or has come about by anything other than cause and effect. At least not that we have seen.

Everything that we observe in the whole universe, appears to have come about by some kind of cause and effect. The only places that we don't see cause and effect in our observations of the universe, are where our observations are incomplete. In fact, scientifically speaking, the scientist relies on cause and effect entirely. The greater the scientist, the more he has relied on cause and effect, action and reaction.

When cause and effect is applied to *mind* we see that all of our thinking has been programmed. The ideas and points in the edit, above, have been produced by cause and effect. This suggests that the idea that God can never "be revealed via the scientific method or any other line of inductive reasoning" (number 2, above) is too extreme. God can never be revealed in His entirety by the scientific method, but He can be revealed in part by that method, that He does indeed exist, and that He is GREAT beyond understanding or nearly so. Why? Because the use of the scientific method, working through one of its basic, major methods - observation of cause and effect - eventually takes us, His children, back to Him - working back through the cause and effect method to the beginning, to God, the Great First Cause.

The only other point about this is, there may be something that operates by methods other than cause and effect - besides God, that is - that we have not observed clearly enough to determine what it is. And because of our nature, we might not be able to understand that we are looking right at it when we ARE looking at it. Yet, in the whole of the observable universe where we have an understanding of what we have observed, we haven't found it. Even the abstract math of quantum mechanics that suggests that *pure random* might exist, came about through minds that used cause and effect in some form to develop the math.

[BADecker]

There is a unique power in the Bible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

image

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

[Rassah]

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

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

[bl4kjaguar]

your "refutings" are utter, raving nonsense.

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

No proof of anything, BADecker?

Then why the accusations?

[the joint]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seems to me that there is one simple, major point either missing from the above, or else not elevated to the position that it actually holds. This is the fact that all observation, and investigation through observation, shows a major, basic quality about everything that is observed: cause and effect, action and reaction. Nothing that we observe or have observed comes or has come about by anything other than cause and effect. At least not that we have seen.

Everything that we observe in the whole universe, appears to have come about by some kind of cause and effect. The only places that we don't see cause and effect in our observations of the universe, are where our observations are incomplete. In fact, scientifically speaking, the scientist relies on cause and effect entirely. The greater the scientist, the more he has relied on cause and effect, action and reaction.

When cause and effect is applied to *mind* we see that all of our thinking has been programmed. The ideas and points in the edit, above, have been produced by cause and effect. This suggests that the idea that God can never "be revealed via the scientific method or any other line of inductive reasoning" (number 2, above) is too extreme. God can never be revealed in His entirety by the scientific method, but He can be revealed in part by that method, that He does indeed exist, and that He is GREAT beyond understanding or nearly so. Why? Because the use of the scientific method, working through one of its basic, major methods - observation of cause and effect - eventually takes us, His children, back to Him - working back through the cause and effect method to the beginning, to God, the Great First Cause.

The only other point about this is, there may be something that operates by methods other than cause and effect - besides God, that is - that we have not observed clearly enough to determine what it is. And because of our nature, we might not be able to understand that we are looking right at it when we ARE looking at it. Yet, in the whole of the observable universe where we have an understanding of what we have observed, we haven't found it. Even the abstract math of quantum mechanics that suggests that *pure random* might exist, came about through minds that used cause and effect in some form to develop the math.

If you can't conclude that

God can never be revealed in His entirety by the scientific method,

then you can't conclude that

He can be revealed in part by that method.

In other words, if you can't understand God in His entirety, then it's impossible to conclude that any "part" of God you might be witnessing is actually God.

Consequently, there is no amount of empirical evidence that can lead to a conclusion that God exists.

[bl4kjaguar]

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

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

[BADecker]

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

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

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

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

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

[BADecker]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seems to me that there is one simple, major point either missing from the above, or else not elevated to the position that it actually holds. This is the fact that all observation, and investigation through observation, shows a major, basic quality about everything that is observed: cause and effect, action and reaction. Nothing that we observe or have observed comes or has come about by anything other than cause and effect. At least not that we have seen.

Everything that we observe in the whole universe, appears to have come about by some kind of cause and effect. The only places that we don't see cause and effect in our observations of the universe, are where our observations are incomplete. In fact, scientifically speaking, the scientist relies on cause and effect entirely. The greater the scientist, the more he has relied on cause and effect, action and reaction.

When cause and effect is applied to *mind* we see that all of our thinking has been programmed. The ideas and points in the edit, above, have been produced by cause and effect. This suggests that the idea that God can never "be revealed via the scientific method or any other line of inductive reasoning" (number 2, above) is too extreme. God can never be revealed in His entirety by the scientific method, but He can be revealed in part by that method, that He does indeed exist, and that He is GREAT beyond understanding or nearly so. Why? Because the use of the scientific method, working through one of its basic, major methods - observation of cause and effect - eventually takes us, His children, back to Him - working back through the cause and effect method to the beginning, to God, the Great First Cause.

The only other point about this is, there may be something that operates by methods other than cause and effect - besides God, that is - that we have not observed clearly enough to determine what it is. And because of our nature, we might not be able to understand that we are looking right at it when we ARE looking at it. Yet, in the whole of the observable universe where we have an understanding of what we have observed, we haven't found it. Even the abstract math of quantum mechanics that suggests that *pure random* might exist, came about through minds that used cause and effect in some form to develop the math.

If you can't conclude that

God can never be revealed in His entirety by the scientific method,

then you can't conclude that

He can be revealed in part by that method.

In other words, if you can't understand God in His entirety, then it's impossible to conclude that any "part" of God you might be witnessing is actually God.

Consequently, there is no amount of empirical evidence that can lead to a conclusion that God exists.

Why? (Of course, we are speaking of God, which makes things different than any example.) A crude example might be a car. We see the car, yet we see it only from one side at a time. A mechanic may know every last thing there is to know about an engine and transmission - even the metallurgy - yet he may know little or nothing about the fabrics that make up the upholstery, or the glass that makes up the windows.

[BADecker]

your "refutings" are utter, raving nonsense.

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

No proof of anything, BADecker?

Then why the accusations?

The proof is in the fact that any additions to Christian writing beyond the Revelation are false. If they are claimed to be from God, they are from the devil instead. This is explained in my above post at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg9798641#msg9798641 .

[BADecker]

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

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

In simple form, your argument is valid.

In complex form, questioning where the complex things of the universe came from, the clearest answer is God, even though we don't have absolute proof for Him, and may never have it.

[bl4kjaguar]

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

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

Jesus says

Jesus never wrote down a single word and Paul was never a "follower of Christ".

If I tell you that Jesus says something, and you doubt it, then why must I accept it when YOU say that Jesus says something?

[BADecker]

Jesus never wrote down a single word and Paul was never a "follower of Christ".

What does the fact that we don't have any evidence of Jesus writing ink on paper have to do with anything?

When you look at the writings of Paul in the Bible, you see that not only was he a follower of Jesus Christ, but he was as close to being a fanatic for Jesus Christ as you can get while doing things in moderation.

If I tell you that Jesus says something, and you doubt it, then why must I accept it when YOU say that Jesus says something?

I don't doubt it. I compare it with what the Bible says, and then I know. Doubt doesn't have anything to do with it.

You are not required to accept anything that I say. Who is going to require it of you? Certainly not me. How can I force you to accept anything from me? I don't have the means or method even if I wanted to. You talk foolishness - in circles, though not as circular as some others. Why would you think that you must accept anything from me... words or anything else?

[bl4kjaguar]

I don't doubt it. I compare it with what the Bible says, and then I know. Doubt doesn't have anything to do with it.

Where have you compared the WORD with the Bible in order to determine that God's WORD is a heresy?

I thought your argument was that all writings outside of Revelations ("this book") are heresies?

[BADecker]

I don't doubt it. I compare it with what the Bible says, and then I know. Doubt doesn't have anything to do with it.

Where have you compared the WORD with the Bible in order to determine that God's WORD is a heresy?

I thought your argument was that all writings outside of Revelations are heresies?

Since your posts generally indicate either that:
A. you don't understand;
B. you intentionally mix things up;
C. you write in circles;
I probably won't answer a lot of things that you have to say. There are better things to do in life than to tutor you or play games with you.

[bl4kjaguar]

I don't doubt it. I compare it with what the Bible says, and then I know. Doubt doesn't have anything to do with it.

Where have you compared the WORD with the Bible in order to determine that God's WORD is a heresy?

I thought your argument was that all writings outside of Revelations are heresies?

I probably won't answer a lot of things that you have to say.

I will never play games with the truth, nor will I accuse one of some thing before giving one a chance to defend oneself.

"Comparison" has nothing to do with it; you have not made any explicit comparison whatsoever, you just go "by the book".

I also have very important things to do, namely: Real study of literal truth.

God's Hosts state that God's people should never be without something to do of great purpose.

[BADecker]

I don't doubt it. I compare it with what the Bible says, and then I know. Doubt doesn't have anything to do with it.

Where have you compared the WORD with the Bible in order to determine that God's WORD is a heresy?

I thought your argument was that all writings outside of Revelations are heresies?

I probably won't answer a lot of things that you have to say.

I will never play games with the truth, nor will I accuse one of some thing before giving one a chance to defend oneself.

"Comparison" has nothing to do with it; you have not made any explicit comparison whatsoever, you just go "by the book".

I also have very important things to do, namely: Real study of literal truth.

God's Hosts state that God's people should never be without something of great importance to do.

Well, thank you, then. Does this mean that our talks are finally concluded?

[bl4kjaguar]

I don't doubt it. I compare it with what the Bible says, and then I know. Doubt doesn't have anything to do with it.

Where have you compared the WORD with the Bible in order to determine that God's WORD is a heresy?

I thought your argument was that all writings outside of Revelations are heresies?

I probably won't answer a lot of things that you have to say.

I will never play games with the truth, nor will I accuse one of some thing before giving one a chance to defend oneself.

"Comparison" has nothing to do with it; you have not made any explicit comparison whatsoever, you just go "by the book".

I also have very important things to do, namely: Real study of literal truth.

God's Hosts state that God's people should never be without something of great importance to do.

Well, thank you, then. Does this mean that our talks are finally concluded?

We can conclude our talks as soon as you apologize for:

Calling my truth "foolishness" without even making an explicit comparison with your truth so that we may discuss such comparison in wisdom of knowledge.

I am pretty sure that such behavior is the height of ignorance and exactly what is meant in the parable about the splinter and the beam.

I care not if the apology is public or private.

[BADecker]

I don't doubt it. I compare it with what the Bible says, and then I know. Doubt doesn't have anything to do with it.

Where have you compared the WORD with the Bible in order to determine that God's WORD is a heresy?

I thought your argument was that all writings outside of Revelations are heresies?

I probably won't answer a lot of things that you have to say.

I will never play games with the truth, nor will I accuse one of some thing before giving one a chance to defend oneself.

"Comparison" has nothing to do with it; you have not made any explicit comparison whatsoever, you just go "by the book".

I also have very important things to do, namely: Real study of literal truth.

God's Hosts state that God's people should never be without something of great importance to do.

Well, thank you, then. Does this mean that our talks are finally concluded?

We can conclude our talks as soon as you apologize for:

Calling my truth "foolishness" without even making an explicit comparison with your truth so that we may discuss such comparison in wisdom of knowledge.

I am pretty sure that such behavior is the height of ignorance and exactly what is meant in the parable about the splinter and the beam.

I care not if the apology is public or private.

I can't apologize for your foolishness. Only you can do that.



EDIT: You might try repenting of it after you apologize.