Scientific Evidence of God?

So the universe tries to act like God

Ohhh, I think the word you want is "emanates" not emulates.

 

No, interpretation is ongoing.

The bible is not a seamless document. It contains writings collected over time from different locals and different colloquial circumstances. There are definite periods or points of departure. The books of moses, the gospel. the acts of the apostles, etc.

In the case of the gospels, it is widely believed that there must have existed at some point an additional book from which the other books drew from, a Q document. The collected sayings of jesus. I use the sayings attributed to jesus as authority in absence of all other influences. The use and application of the sayings posited by jesus has demonstrated to me that they are true.

The documents were meticulously copied by hand and preserved and maintained for thousands of years. We know from observation.

 

interpretation is to bring out the meaning of something: as I see the the Bible as a whole only has one meaning my statement stands. You obviously disagree that we have found that one meaning.

I have studied the Bible thoroughly... I understand there are things that seem like contradictions, but when you truly study them, there are not. There is an underlying context that can be found throughout the Bible.

The wide belief of Q dates all the way back to 1900 when we did not have evidence that Matthew was the first book of the bible written... now that we know it was, it invalidates the entire idea. Even when it was popular it was hypothetical at best. And no one has ever been able to explain why such a document, which would have been prized by early Christians, has now completely disappeared.

Your last comment does not change the fact that the Bible is either divninely inspired or not. I believe it is, which means that is it not just simply there because people are devoted to it.

I also don't see us getting anywhere, only explaining our points over and over again. We obviously disagree on the fundamental nature of how any of this works, maybe we should be discussing that.

 

Interpretation imparts hypothetical meaning. Experience confirms it. We can each look at a sentence and come away with different meanings that are of relevance to ourselves.

Well, you are not looking around you, and you cannot express that one meaning in one thought or one statement, you can only allude to it. What did you say the theology would take along time to explain?

I have studied the bible thoroughly and have also been gifted the spirit that teaches all things. I don't know all things but I learn the things I ask to learn.

There are many layers of underlying contexts in the bible and I would venture some you have have yet to perceive.

You are misrepresenting the state of knowledge here. The fact is that despite challenges the two source hypothesis retains wide support.
But it was not my point that I believed in the existence of Q, but that the idea of Q gave me the idea of viewing the statements attributed to jesus as a stand alone teaching, not dependent on any other source. In other words you don't need any book from the old testament to comprehend the lessons of christ.

And again, belief is not admissible as evidence. The bible is evidence only of the devotion of men, regardless whether you believe that devotion was well placed.

That is what I am trying to do. The disagreement is over whether conviction of belief constitutes factual evidence. Not whether you or I are right or wrong about the meaning of the bible.

 

I do not know what you mean by being gifted with the spirit that teaches all things. It's really statements like this that make it hard to understand what your saying.

However you did make a few things clear in that last statement so let me address them.

1) interpretation can still be right or wrong. You may interpret or perceive my actions as being done for certain reason, but you will not always be right in that interpretation. We are all like this, but it does not change that there is still a definite right and definite wrong.

The same is true of the bible. we may get relevance from it and still have a wrong interpretation.

2) I attempted to explain only a part of my reasoning to others before, and that took a very long bit of writing... and it was only two short examples. That is what I mean by the theology would take a long time to explain... yes it is the theology I believe, but I very strongly also feel that it is the original underlying point of the entire Bible that gives the context and cohesion that many people do not see.

In short, God is love, and love is the underlying theme. This is not the love that we as man truely understand about being nice to everyone and treating each other like we treat ourselves (although this is a big part). It is a much deeper story of a God that loved his creation so much he knew he had to give them the choice to love him back. Man choose not to, and God than had to put into a plan to restore that relationship.

3) I also have studied the bible thoroughly as well as many other religions and other fields of study. I also do not know everything, but feel I have been gifted with and developed the patients to take all new information in and sift through it. I also spent 10 years as a classroom teacher and understand the psychology of learning and teaching.

That being said. Lets not sit here and compare brain pans... lets just assume that we are both intelligent people who know how to reason and think through things. I admit that your phrasing and terms have been hard for me to interpret in such short phrases, but if I implied that it made you unintelligent, accept my apology for it was not by intent.

4) There are many things christ said that can be comprehended without the OT. however, he was talking to a group of people that followed the Pharisaical interpretation of the OT, and was trying to teach them they had it wrong. An understanding of the Ot and how the pharisees viewed it is widely beneficial and even necessary to understand the challenges Jesus brought to it. Without it anyone understanding of Jesus' statements is incomplete. We are prone to wrong interpretations as it is as humans, knowing as much context as possible helps us to be more accurate.

Reading the Gettysburg address can help you comprehend Lincoln as a person, but if you do not understand and study the Civil War you will not have a full understanding.

5) belief being admissible as evidence? I think we can both agree that it is not evidence. If I implied otherwise (which I am sure I did) than again not my intent. Faith and Belief is evidence of things you can not see... they are interpretations of the evidence, not evidence themselves.

You and I obviously have fundamentally different ideas of what god is, so I will just say this: I do not know everything, but I have studied and researched and reasoned till I reached by beliefs. I have said that science is not going to prove God, and neither is my belief. But my belief is just as reasonable as anything people believe in science.

 

:lurk5:

 

That is perhaps because you don't know the bible to the extent that you think you do. I am talking about the gift of the holy spirit.

Perception is not knowledge, but perception can lead to knowledge. The distinction between perception and knowledge is that knowledge is actionable regardless of perception. Faith without works is dead. Making comparative analysis absent experiential conjugation, is meaningless.
There is what is real, and then there is what is imagined about what is real.

And you don't know what you don't know. You may get relevance and you may have correct interpretation as far as you know. However something may come to light which changes the entire calculus of what you had, "known".

No kidding, there are people who do not believe the same as you according to a different "theological model". When you are making an argument for the veracity of something, belief is not a reliable metric. To offer belief as substantiation for argument is not of substance. You are simply saying it is so because I believe it so.

If in summation, the lesson is god is love, then the particulars are not relevant. Any stimulus that leads you to the awareness of love is therefor acceptable.

That is a nice theory. However if god is love, love is what you are being created in the likeness and image of love. Love does not seek it's own, Therefor love does not set up blind experiments that we may happen upon it.

Your credentials iin life are no more significant than mine. We are all as god created us.

I didn't suspect that you thought I was unintelligent and you needn't convince me of your earnest and diligent sincerity. I know you believe in what you say.

I have to disagree with your analysis here. Jesus spelled out the error of pharisees, you didn't have to be familiar with their beliefs.

We have our modern equivalent of scribes and pharisees, keepers of letters and interpreters of words and they have infiltrated modern religion just as they had ancient. The pharisee does enter himself nor does he allow anyone else to enter, for the sake of his convictions, for the sake of what he perceives to be the "correct interpretation".

And studying the civil war does not impart as thorough an understanding as fighting it.

5) belief being admissible as evidence? I think we can both agree that it is not evidence. [/QUOTE]
Yes we agree, but you don't seem to appreciate the fallacy of using belief as substantiation for arguable points.

No one needs to prove god for scientific examination. God exists by definition.
What we may be able to determine with some accuracy is what the word symbol "god", represents in practice, in the phenomenal nature that we observe, as opposed to the phenomenal nature we imagine or had been taught. It may be that the study of the human body will illumine the nature of god. Add a chemical, instant god.

 

You're a hard task master..

Ok.. I'll use the...


The Scientific Method


Observation of phenomena

“Look! This is what we have investigated. So is it.
Hear it, and you know it for yourself." - Job5:27

-
The formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena

“Beloved ones, let us continue loving one another, because love is from God and everyone who loves has been born from God and gains the knowledge of God. He that does not love has not come to know God, because GOD IS LOVE.” - 1John 4:7

-

Experimentation



“I will put my Laws in their mind, and in their hearts I shall write them. And I will become their God, and they themselves will become my people.
"And they will by no means teach each one his fellow citizen and each one his brother, saying: "Know God!" For they will all know me, from the least one to the greatest one of them.” – Hebrews 8:10
-

And.. a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.

"All things, therefore, that you want men to do to you, you also must likewise do to them; this, in fact, is what the Law and the Prophets mean." - Matthew 7:12

---

"The men who discovered for us the Law of Love were greater scientists than any of our modern scientists. Only our explorations have not gone far enough and so it is not possible for every one to see all its working.

Such, at any rate, is the hallucination, if it is one, under which I am laboring. The more I work at this law the more I feel the delight in life, the delight in the scheme of this universe. It gives me a peace and a meaning of the mysteries of nature that I have no power to describe." - Gandhi

----
"Surely we could love each other as we love ourselves...

That's the main thing, isn't it?

That's it, nothing else...

Absolutely nothing else is necessary...

Do that and the way forward is clear, isn't it?

Well.... isn't it?

Alright, so its nothing but an old truth, repeated, said billions of times; but why hasn't it taken root then?

If only we all wanted it!

Then everything could begin again…

"The Dream of the Ridiculous Man" - Fyodor Dostoyevski

“If you send forth your Spirit, they are created And you make the face of the Earth new.”

Psalm 104:30
-

 

Go E. H.. That is what I'm talking about.

 

Except for the following:

Such evaluation gives no information on the environment, only information on ones attitude about it.

The technology of a time and place is always cutting edge for that time and place. However all ingenuity appears ingenuous, that is artless, in relation to the qualities present in the sunrise.

 

“Counsel in the heart of a man is as deep waters, but the man of discernment is one that will draw it up.”

“For we are not writing you things except those which you well know or also recognize; and I hope you will continue to recognize to the end, just as you have also recognized, to an extent, that we are a cause for you to boast, just as you will also be on the day of our Lord Jesus. He has also put his seal upon us and has given us the token of what is to come, that is, the spirit in our hearts.”

Proverbs 20.5 + 2Corinthians 1:12

---


Sharon Stone says much the same.... maybe God speaks to her too..J

http://www.apocatastasis.net/GoldenRule/Golden-Rule.html


-

 

1) You are doing the same thing you are accusing me of. You assuming I am offering my belief as a proof, when I am not. I am simply stating it outright so that there is no question as to the conclusion I have reached. There is no way my belief alone will convince you.

2) The only other point that appears important to me is the matter of context. you seem to feel it is unimportant, while I feel it is critical. Something tells me we will not agree on this point.

I have a deep knowledge of the Bible, as well as what the holy spirit is. But something tells me the definition of what the Holy Spirit is is another thing we will not agree on.

 

I am not accusing you of anything I am observing that you use belief as opposed to fact as the basis of your ontology.

If you learn love without measure, what is the purpose of those details?

Ahh, but the difference here is that I am in communion with the holy spirit as I had asked god for comfort and he had done as promised. I was not an articulate man before the rushing of wind.

 

Believe what you would like. We obviously disagree on what fact is and you have not read my posts if you think I am just using belief alone. Neither have you provided any proof or evidence for these facts you say I am not looking at.

The details is how we distinguish one thing from another. The details are how we know that something is what is says it is. This is why we have classifications in science, and why we have dictionaries for words. It is how we know that the God the Bible talks about is not the same as the gods the greeks believed in or that the Muslims believe in.

I also have asked God for the holy spirit, and asked God to open my eyes and show me the way. If we have both done this and god answered us both, but we have different answers... than one of us is wrong. No real reason to debate who, as we will just disagree.

 

I didn't say you are using belief alone, I said you were using belief as the underlying basis. If you were to come across a fact that contradicted your "firm conclusion", you would ignore it. To consider scientific evidence of god, we must be willing to lay aside firm conclusions for the sake of open investigation.

For one it would be the phenomena I describe above. Belief must be defended because it's premise is not evident.

Another is that man makes and image of god inferred from experiential conjugations until such a time when he might enter in with him.

You don't know that, because if the lesson is ultimately love then we can see identical aspects attributed to their god. There is no real difference because the particulars of a specific religious doctrine melt away in light of the real lesson. The apparent differences are in cultural vernacular, cultural references. They are not differences in devotion. Evidence of god, must be the evidence of all men, not just a chosen few.

Why must one of us be wrong. Perhaps being a different individual gives you a different role in the evolution of understanding. I know god in secret, as god knows me in secret.

 

you believe that it is all relative, which makes it impossible to truly get anywhere in this. Believe what you will, but your summary of my faith and beliefs is wrong, and since all you have is words on a page and you do not really know me, you really have no way of truly backing up that point. But thanks for the judgement.

I also see no point in entering into god when I can talk and interact with him personally here and now. Truth is truth and is has always existed... it is discovered but does not evolve.

I also see no point in relativism... anything you want to be true could be true... which means there is no definite, which means why would you even care what I think or do not think.

 

Since I don't know you as as you claim, all I have to go on is your testimony.
I pointed to your testimony. I am not doubting your conviction.
I would point also that your testimony changed significantly when I said I was in communion with the holy spirit. It went from your deliberations, to the spirit opened my eyes. I don't know how to categorize that other than a change of pace. I don't know where you are trying to race to.

The truth does not evolve, our understanding does.
Are there times when you choose not to interact with god personally, like here and now, and if so, why would you do that?

I am not speaking for relativism, I am speaking for understanding.

 

I thought the whole idea of Jesus is that he proved God by manifesting his Supreme Spirit to the world. The Spirit of Loving kindness.. Righteousness.. Justice.. Peace.. Wisdom.. Truth and Freedom…


Jesus proved God existed by both his words and his actions. He became what the Sphinx symbolizes.. The god-man.. thereby leading us by example.. so we might all cultivate our god-like nature..

Religion is an ancient science.. considering that the word - science - means – knowledge

Physics is the science of material things..

Religion (not religions) is the science of God

----

Definition of Science - /ˈsaɪəns/

noun
1.
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws:

knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

---

I’m not sure what you mean.. when you say that - God is a being - though..

Do you mean a material being……. or being.. as in - life force.. ?

Life force would be an acceptable concept for God…. and it can be proved..

It’s the difference between a living thing.. and a dead thing..

Paul taught that God is a life-force.. which makes sense..

---

“..for them to seek god, if they might grope for him and really find him, although , in fact, he is not far off from each one of us. For by him we have life and move and exist, even as certain ones of the poets among you have said, `For we are also his progeny.” - Acts 17:23 -29


---

Both Jesus and Paul clearly say.. that God is a Spirit..

Jesus explained God.. by his words and his actions..

Isn’t that true?

---

‘No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the heart with the Father is the one that has explained him.” - John 1:18

----

He explained God as being.. the Holy Spirit of Loving kindness.. Righteousness.. Justice.. Peace.. Wisdom.. Truth and Freedom… which are the Seven Spirits of God.. spoken of in Revelation.

Jesus was the proof of the Spirit of God.. that existed.. or didn’t exist.. in human hearts and minds..

Jesus was a TRUE scientist – A man who had acquired knowledge of the Depths of the ALL.

___

CONCERNING THOSE WHO KNOW NOT AND DENY THIS SCIENCE. - THOMAS AQUINAS

This glorious science of God and doctrine of the saints and secret of the philosophers and medicine of the physicians fools despise, for what it is they know not.

These will not have the blessing and it shall be far from them, nor does such science suit the unskilled, for everyone who is ignorant of it is its enemy, and not without cause. For the mockery of science is the cause of ignorance, and lettuces are not to be given to asses, for thistles suffice them, nor is the children's bread to be set before the dogs to eat, nor are pearls to be cast before swine,
and such mockers are not partakers in this noble science; for he would be a breaker of the heavenly seal who should make the secrets of this science known to the unworthy; nor shall the spirit of this wisdom enter into a gross body, nor can the fool see it on account of the perversity of his reason.

For the wise have not spoken to the foolish, seeing that he that speaks with a fool speaks with one that is asleep.

If I were to unriddle all things as they are, there would be no further place for prudence, for the fool would be made equal to the wise; nor would any mortal under the sphere of the moon bewail in stepmotherly poverty the pangs of hunger, for in this science the number of fools is infinite."

-----

The Seven Spirits of God

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eUKCcb2eoU&list=WL06966D43E72FFFD1&feature=mh_lolz

-

 

Why the font?