Scientific proof that God exists?

[Buffer Overflow]

What this means is, that in all the hurt and bad feelings one might have for God, there are really only two choices. You are either on God's side, or you are against Him. Take your pick.

Your two options come loaded with the assumpton that god exists in the first place.
Option three, just don't believe god exists. (And before you say it, no this isn't the same as against god.)

[Lauda]

Faith doesn't need proof, and you cannot prove it since he is created in the minds of humans.

So it is the work of their imagination. I knew it.

[BADecker]

What this means is, that in all the hurt and bad feelings one might have for God, there are really only two choices. You are either on God's side, or you are against Him. Take your pick.

Your two options come loaded with the assumpton that god exists in the first place.
Option three, just don't believe god exists. (And before you say it, no this isn't the same as against god.)

I am not against anyone having a right to his own opinion. I believe, as you have surmised I would, that your third option really falls under the category of my second. This is okay. God knows where you stand. Because of this, He can work to save you in the ways that it takes to turn people to salvation.

The thing that God almost can't work with is people who are like the Jews... at least the religious Jews. They accept that there is a Messiah. Then they reject Jesus Who is that Messiah. They are lukewarm simply because they have a mixture of faith and unbelief, even though they tend toward God. Even God has a hard time working with people who are sincere, and yet believe in Him at the same time that they don't.

Take a look at the Jews. They have the blessings and the curses that God talked about in the whole Old Testament. This is because they are the children of Abraham while they are at the same time rejecting what is probably the most important aspect of God regarding people... Jesus salvation. What other nation has such great blessings and curses within and around them at the same time?

[bl4kjaguar]

Faith doesn't need proof, and you cannot prove it since he is created in the minds of humans.

So it is the work of their imagination. I knew it.

If that were so for all varieties of "spiritual" experience then you would be able to use "the work of their imagination" to provide an answer to the Problem of Seth's Origin:
http://www.rivier.edu/faculty/pcunningham/Research/Problem_of_Seths_Origin.pdf

Presumably your explanation would fall under "hypnotic self-suggestion" and "high creativity", but these explanations do not adequately answer the Problem.

[bl4kjaguar]

Perhaps you could use rationality.

Now if you did a historical analysis of the Bible, and Bible history, you would see that you don't need anything else.

Bro, you are the one who needs to do a historical analysis of the Bible and especially "the doctrine of Saul".

The "First Christians" audio is a great starting point for getting familiar with scholastic references and the history of the early church as agreed upon by scholars. That is a historical analysis and you have not called into question the references and facts therein.

http://www.phoenixsourcedistributors.com/html/1992_meetings.html

[bl4kjaguar]

How ignorant are you? Don't you even realize that everyone can see by your responses in this thread, that you and your whole system are deceptive?

Is it not ironic that you accuse me of ignorance while you refuse to study history?

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.

I read both books and compare; you read only the Bible and you did not quote my book/audio.

What this relates to is ignorance. Your deliberate ignorance of info that contradicts your B.S. (belief system).

Perhaps you could use rationality.

Now if you did a historical analysis of the Bible, and Bible history, you would see that you don't need anything else.

Bro, you are the one who needs to do a historical analysis of the Bible and especially "the doctrine of Saul".

The "First Christians" audio is a great starting point for getting familiar with scholastic references and the history of the early church as agreed upon by scholars. That is a historical analysis and you have not called into question the references and facts therein.

http://www.phoenixsourcedistributors.com/html/1992_meetings.html

[Lauda]

Faith doesn't need proof, and you cannot prove it since he is created in the minds of humans.

So it is the work of their imagination. I knew it.

If that were so for all varieties of "spiritual" experience then you would be able to use "the work of their imagination" to provide an answer to the Problem of Seth's Origin:
http://www.rivier.edu/faculty/pcunningham/Research/Problem_of_Seths_Origin.pdf

Presumably your explanation would fall under "hypnotic self-suggestion" and "high creativity", but these explanations do not adequately answer the Problem.

Sum that up if you want to make a post, I'm not reading that much text for no real purpose.

[bl4kjaguar]

Faith doesn't need proof, and you cannot prove it since he is created in the minds of humans.

So it is the work of their imagination. I knew it.

If that were so for all varieties of "spiritual" experience then you would be able to use "the work of their imagination" to provide an answer to the Problem of Seth's Origin:
http://www.rivier.edu/faculty/pcunningham/Research/Problem_of_Seths_Origin.pdf

Presumably your explanation would fall under "hypnotic self-suggestion" and "high creativity", but these explanations do not adequately answer the Problem.

Sum that up if you want to make a post, I'm not reading that much text for no real purpose.

That is a published paper; you can read the abstract and conclusion.

The purpose is to show you a different perspective, and introduce you to substantial issues such as the Problem of Seth's Origin and related questions such as the "Content-Source Problem".

[protokol]

Faith doesn't need proof, and you cannot prove it since he is created in the minds of humans.

So it is the work of their imagination. I knew it.

If that were so for all varieties of "spiritual" experience then you would be able to use "the work of their imagination" to provide an answer to the Problem of Seth's Origin:
http://www.rivier.edu/faculty/pcunningham/Research/Problem_of_Seths_Origin.pdf

Presumably your explanation would fall under "hypnotic self-suggestion" and "high creativity", but these explanations do not adequately answer the Problem.

Sum that up if you want to make a post, I'm not reading that much text for no real purpose.

That is a published paper; you can read the abstract and conclusion.

The purpose is to show you a different perspective, and introduce you to substantial issues such as the Problem of Seth's Origin and related questions such as the "Content-Source Problem".

Do you have any links to video evidence of this Jane Roberts doing her thing? I did have a read through some of the paper, while it does claim some extraordinary things and makes some valid points, it doesn't seem to follow much of a scientific method. The fact that the majority of the material was transcribed by her husband instantly sets skeptical alarm bells off in my mind.

[heureca]

If god exist, he need put some text under this line  
---------------------------------------------------------
this is a test 1, 2, 1,2  

here you go

[bl4kjaguar]

Faith doesn't need proof, and you cannot prove it since he is created in the minds of humans.

So it is the work of their imagination. I knew it.

If that were so for all varieties of "spiritual" experience then you would be able to use "the work of their imagination" to provide an answer to the Problem of Seth's Origin:
http://www.rivier.edu/faculty/pcunningham/Research/Problem_of_Seths_Origin.pdf

Presumably your explanation would fall under "hypnotic self-suggestion" and "high creativity", but these explanations do not adequately answer the Problem.

Sum that up if you want to make a post, I'm not reading that much text for no real purpose.

That is a published paper; you can read the abstract and conclusion.

The purpose is to show you a different perspective, and introduce you to substantial issues such as the Problem of Seth's Origin and related questions such as the "Content-Source Problem".

Do you have any links to video evidence of this Jane Roberts doing her thing? I did have a read through some of the paper, while it does claim some extraordinary things and makes some valid points, it doesn't seem to follow much of a scientific method. The fact that the majority of the material was transcribed by her husband instantly sets skeptical alarm bells off in my mind.

I am not familiar with this material; all I have is Cunningham's papers and a copy of The Nature of Personal Reality which I did not even finish; also, I note that Jane Roberts is mentioned in Phoenix Journal #2.

If you are alarmed by the possibility of fraud, I suggest a read of the Eisenbeiss case where fraud was determined to be highly unlikely.
http://www.aeces.info/Top40/Cases_8-25/case24_soulmate.pdf

There is limited science because this paper is a phenomenological study.

[Phenomenology] is primarily a descriptive discipline and is undertaken in a way that is largely independent of scientific, including causal, explanations and accounts of the nature of experience. Topics discussed within the phenomenological tradition include [but are not limited to] the nature of intentionality, perception, time-consciousness, self-consciousness, awareness of the body and consciousness of others.

Of course, making a conclusion is difficult... because of the content-source problem! Still, the Seth material is suggestive;

No academic psychologist, including Dr. Instream, will give you a statement to the effect that [Seth is] a survival personality. Dr. Instream will give a statement I believe, as to Robert and Jane's character, the quality of the Seth material, and the fact that no fraud of any kind is involved.

Not nearly as suggestive as the Phoenix Journals though! I also like the Cosmic Awareness messages (mention is made in Journal #85).

Speaking of which, the emphasis here is mine:

Are you among the few who could read the messages from Cosmic Awareness [or any channeled source] and neither believe nor disbelieve, but use them to stimulate your thoughts and bring your own consciousness toward search and discovery for yourself?

[Rassah]

There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING anyone can do to change the system or to fight God.

Uh, yeah there is. We stopped the practice of slavery and subjugating women that he commanded.

[darkota]

There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING anyone can do to change the system or to fight God.

Uh, yeah there is. We stopped the practice of slavery and subjugating women that he commanded.

True. The Old Testament portion of the Bible is complete bullshit. It's full of murder and hated commanded by "god".

We don't need religion, but, for the meantime and for most of the world, it works. It gives hope. Until the day another group or system comes up that can give people the hope and love they need, religion will always be there.

[BADecker]

There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING anyone can do to change the system or to fight God.

Uh, yeah there is. We stopped the practice of slavery and subjugating women that he commanded.

Yes. In areas of the world, man started such a thing as slavery, and then man stopped it. Slavery was not God's idea. He condoned it so that He could work with both, masters and slaves, so that He might save some for eternal life.

Slavery has been formally abolished by all the major nations of the world. Yet it is still practiced in many places. Much of Northwestern Africa condones it even though it is against their formal laws. Slavery is so imbedded in the slave classes of African people, that many groups of slaves have no idea what freedom means. You can't offer them freedom, because they don't understand what that means.

Slavery is of man, not God. God's plan is salvation in the afterlife, where all will be free.

[BADecker]

The Old Testament portion of the Bible is complete bullshit. It's full of murder and hated commanded by "god".

We don't need religion, but, for the meantime and for most of the world, it works. It gives hope. Until the day another group or system comes up that can give people the hope and love they need, religion will always be there.

You are mistaken about the O.T., and about God.

We don't need religion. Yet we DO need an understanding of what religion is.

True religion is groupings of beliefs, often based on things that are perceived as truth.

The Bible and God, on the other hand, are not religion, simply because they are the most real of all realities.

[bl4kjaguar]

The Bible and God, on the other hand, are not religion, simply because they are the most real of all realities.

The Bible is the most real? Then you should have no problem responding to this post:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg9916356#msg9916356

[BADecker]

The Bible and God, on the other hand, are not religion, simply because they are the most real of all realities.

The Bible is the most real? Then you should have no problem responding to this post:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg9916356#msg9916356

Well, it was trouble. I had to log in to do it.

http://www.everystudent.com/features/bible.html

[bl4kjaguar]

The Bible and God, on the other hand, are not religion, simply because they are the most real of all realities.

The Bible is the most real? Then you should have no problem responding to this post:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg9916356#msg9916356

Well, it was trouble. I had to log in to do it.

http://www.everystudent.com/features/bible.html

None of those points relate to what I posted. To start with:

Are you going to explain what your source called "the known teachings of Jesus" and how such teachings are different from what I understand as "the teachings of Jesus", which you have called "heresy"?

Do you realize that Christ never said "I, Jesus, am the Son of God"?
That is because "Jesus" was never his name while he was alive.

You who tell me to "go back to Jesus Christ" had better take a long, hard look at the rest of that "book" in point.

If you know so little about us as to not read the books and STILL think you have valid INPUT to our work, whatever that might be--I suggest you think again--most carefully! We serve ONE master here--GOD! If your perception differs as to who that might be--then go find the ones who serve according to YOUR PERCEPTION AND BLESS US WITH YOUR ABSENCE, PLEASE.

I find the "books" (JOURNALS) are denounced without so much as holding a copy in hand, much less the reading of such documents. Perhaps it HAS TO BE THAT WAY, however, or the eyes and soul (if one is present) would see Truth?? ()

If you hear or see an image of Clinton on the vidiot box or hear his voice on the airwaves or on a telephone line--do you accept or deny the possibility that IT IS Clinton? Then why is it so hard to accept that GOD and his MESSENGERS just MIGHT be allowed the same possibility?

By the way--the ones who deny ME are the ones who also tell you to not witness this material--"throw it out". You tell ME, how anyone can make judgment or discernment through NOT EXPERIENCING? PSYCHICS? OH I THINK NOT!

I am continually amused at how many tell me to "go back to Christ!" How so--I TRAVEL WITH YOUR "CHRIST"!! AND, FURTHERMORE, IF ANYONE BOTHERED TO READ MY WRITINGS--IT CAN NOT BE REFUTED. So, WHO is the fool? Well, perhaps "me" for wasting your time with it for, after all, I have all the "time" in the Universe--and you are VERY LIMITED IN THAT COMMODITY. I would ask you, however, WHAT ELSE ARE YOU DOING THAT TAKES SO MUCH "TIME"?

[BADecker]

Do you realize that Christ never said "I, Jesus, am the Son of God"?
That is because "Jesus" was never his name while he was alive.

I'm finally starting to understand your deceptions a little.

Jesus was never His name while He was alive, for the same reason that He never said "I, Jesus, am the Son of God." He didn't use modern English. Even in His travels to the British Isles, He never used modern English. Why not? Because it hadn't been invented yet back then.

Get off it, will you?

[androz]

He never said "I, Jesus, am the Son of God." He didn't use modern English. Even in His travels to the British Isles, He never used modern English.

 has jesus travelled in british isles??