God is something that is outside the physical realm, or Universe.
It's like this, when you take out everything ( Universe and all) what's left, or more correctly, who's left is God. When everything is taken out, there's only God.
Core issues that need to be discussed in the first place:
1. Whether the default must be (of origin of things) either nothing or something.
Nothing in my view is only something because of perception. Nothing as an entity or value is just a result of the perception that absence of something is presently true.
Therefore, since the laws we are subjected to as agents of perception always dictates that nothing (granted the above description apply) cannot create anything, it becomes necessary that something must always be existing in order for another something to exist.
The rule then must always proceed (also because of the laws we perceive or observe or are subject to):
Pre-existing complexity but in a different form which leads to the emergence of different systems under another form emerging after the prior (but in a way has always existed because of inevitability due to an overriding law that determines the interactions):
An arching process that as the degradation of one dominant force reaches its stable form (whereby such a process has resulted in the creation/organization of other forms and systems), where stability means that such a force is now in its irreversible and indestructible state but is necessary foundation for others to proceed or remain as they do, another dominant force emerges... eventually all of these will stabilize and only a cycle persists.
In a way it is an ever changing recycling machine but whose function remains as is. Thus the input and output of it is the same, but its own form is constantly morphing or having an internal transformation that will eventually reach a point where it doesn't allow for it to go beyond or fall inadequate. It becomes perpetual motion of changes which is the process by which recycling occurs, but itself is not allowed to diminish or increase in itself.
The overriding law in the beginning here reaches its ultimate condition, which means it can no longer affect in a way it did before due to what it has brought out or created. Like how a blender can no longer crush and mix at a certain point, but can keep running in the background. (This is too simplistic an example though)
--------------------------------------------------
more mind-fuck:
Number 914 is made up of the attributes and energies of the numbers 9, 1 and 4. Number 9 brings its vibrations of inner-wisdom, serving humanity as a Lightworker, your life path, Universal Spiritual Laws, endings and conclusions, leading by positive example. Number 1 resonates with new beginnings, striving forward, creation, intuition and inspiration, attainment, fulfilment and happiness. Number 4 resonates with hard work, building solid foundations, practicality, worthiness, traditional values and dependability, passion and drive.
Angel Number 914 indicates that you have been working towards making important life changes that will bring about stability and new opportunities that will help you to achieve the successes you desire. These changes have been manifested through your devotion to your passions and Divine life purpose, and will bring you many blessings and rewards. Trust that all will turn out for your highest good.
Matthew 13. (I know that in churches this only is taken to mean about the church and the faith, but I have my own arguments about that notion).
v13-15 Somehow speaks of selective process or law on individuals.
v18-23 Somehow refers to mental and psyche stuff. Also selective or that each person has an in-born thing about them. The sower scatters seed everywhere. Pure random but on specific pre-defined basis upon which things occur.
v24-32 Speaks about two general active patterns of forces and agents. A period where it is necessary for two mutually incompatible things are allowed to endure by an overriding ruler of laws acted upon by the agents of selective process and order. Also speaks about selective process at a certain point that results to things being exterminated.
Also hints something like emergence, and probably permanent state of the universe at a certain point of expansion. Also looks like organism capable of travel in some way inhabiting the great many habitable planets that will eventually be there at this point. (Why use a tree and not a flower and bees eh?) Include 33 here.
v34-35 Where I felt this was not just about the church and faith.
v36-43 One dimension of what is hinted at. But this seems to point out some sort of evolution to a degree that certain laws will change over time. A state is reached where selection occurs of the governing elements. There is also some kind of ultimate point that is reached.
v44-50 Also strongly speaks about selective process. The balanced vs the imba. Selling of other treasures for a new one. And a fine tuning, or seeking of specific 'treasure'. Fire, being a chemical process could mean that there is only recycling that occurs and not damnation. A redistribution of said parts and thus annihilation of identity. A circular persistent state at a certain point where a stable state constitutes all higher forms (selected) and other non-essential forms by definition of the selective process are redistributed. (more clear view, or clarification, of the idea of reincarnation in some way)
v52 Also basis of my argument on this aspect. This also speaks about the nature of these words, the expression thereof, and possible interpretations or appreciation. This also keeps with the theme of what is stated above, and also reiterates selective process and recycling.
(Wtf! right?) Lol. But hey, who knows...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
Craig is a philosopher that can take either side. He can say what I have to say. In the mean time, Zero Hour: Shockwave exists and must be worshiped.
Oh, yeah, I just met the great Spaghetti Monster. He said, 'If I am, and in me and through me I am, why I am that I am is only due to your limited plate.'
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
Evolution happened in some way or other, but this doesn't really stand to disprove God, only the idea that creation happened in 6 earth days. For all we know there could be quantum days or whatever time scale there is when we go back along with the universe's expansion in reverse.
Do you think that when the universe was 1 hour old, that time in that span is at the rate we have now? Do you think time is constant, or do you accept that it is possible that time is only a description of the interactions somewhere at a fundamental level?
In a religious argument, do you think that when someone seems to talk objectively about creation of everything by God from nothing that the person would be standing on the earth? Or would you rather think that it was like how Revelations is written, which is a recollection of the events or feelings when the person was in that 'dimension'?
To add: Do we really think our interpretation of Revelations is correct in all accounts?
It is a question of who is more admirable. Judgment and good sense is not universal when applied, but certain universal human aspects can be used to determine whether a certain activity or state of affair can be called admirable when applied to said universal human stuff.
---------------------------
About the big bang:
Is there really proof that our universe came from that single point? Is it not possible that say an area is energized and from certain points come pop things which then from those points expanded to some degree, which then at a certain point in the future will stabilize?
I mean, how far have we really detected the said thing that is used as proof of expansion? The entirety of the vastness of the universe which we cannot yet explore entirely proposes that we cannot hold this assumption as true, since our observation is not simultaneously from different points in that vastness in its entirety.
Therefore, there is a huge possibility that simultaneous bursts happened or perhaps in some areas sequential ones being consequence of a certain mechanism we yet have to understand like stuff in a quantum level.
Regardless it be a single point origin of everything or simultaneous, it's quite astounding that what is proposed to us now is accepted as valid and true without considering that there might be certain things we don't know yet.
What happens to the God argument if there was multiple bursts or simultaneous emergence of mechanics and dynamics under totally different yet reconcilable laws? What happens to the Atheist argument then?
Would it still be a God if you can shake his hands?
Grad, that pic is a blast. I knew it!
\o\ lol /o/
One must wonder though, why are miracles so isolated? I know there are a lot of people having visions in certain places, but I guess there must be a reason why God doesn't just jump in and stir the pond.
Charysmatic, as a side thought, your question is probably part of the reason why the theist vs atheist debate will not be resolved anytime soon. The fact that science does not know everything just yet to be able to put an end to the debate once and for all.
Eiviyn, I guess what I'm trying to say is simple and it is in a form of a question with certain parameters.
It's a challenge to how people translate the text. And there's a lot of ways to look at said texts. As an example, your response is an example, in that, though I have no intention of saying the Bible is science, rather that "Is it possible that what's been talked about before was something we are in right now (science), or is part of that which was alluded to in those text, if we accept that they are somewhat divinely inspired?"
In any case, it's true what you say. No science has ever come out of the Bible in a literal, "I read the bible and I discovered the laws of physics", but in another view they call it a some form of revelation. But this goes into arguing with established theology, which would assume certain parameters to be there. That was the context of my post up there.
This one is very interesting:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense on the interpretation: (continuing on the blasphemy)
Isn't it true that Priesthoods were the "scientists" of their time? If you look at it in a way that Shamans, albularios, priests of [deity here], etc. functioned ages and ages ago. Elders were for political functions, etc. etc. Overtime this changes.
Well, at least in tribes you can see this clearly. Shamans would have access to medicine, and would hold secret of the medicine. They have ceremonies to drive "disease causing spirits", which to the microscope is simply just fungus. In a time without proper medicine, these shamans would in some form be very much like science and all its areas today.
Though they were not 100% accurate, they were the only science in those times in some form, weren't they? Now, what if that's what that text was really "seeing"?
Nah, it's metaphoric. I don't think the guys 2000 years ago had atomic scale.
9000 years, 7777 years, 70x7 times, it's all symbolic. Asking a tribe somewhere here, who don't have numbers for use will just say, "oh, that's pleanty; oh that's few no deal".
But I see what you did there. :)
Take this for example:
Luke 12:29-31
And do not seek what you are to eat and what you are to drink, nor be worried. For all the nations of the world seek after these things, and your Father knows that you need them. Instead, seek his kingdom, and these things will be added to you.
And the crusades happened flawlessly, and now we have this shit.
It's crazy. Obviously that means science to me. If we can develop technology where we can create 7000 loaves of bread from a machine...
--------------------------------------------------------
this might be blasphemous, but bear with me:
1 Peter 2:9
9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.
1. Priests in the past went into chambers or were the officials trusted to seek the signs of the times, to mix stuff and remove mold in a house, to mix herbs to cure disease.
2. They were entrusted to look into the vast unknown, formulate theories, and test them out with themselves first, then announce to others.
3. Holy - means to be separate, not subjective. Objective. To be different.
"who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light"
possible translation:
"through the laws of nature inexorably evolve intelligence and mental capacity that takes you from mystery into workable theories which seem so strange and yet brilliant."
Grad, I would not recommend prayer. There are theories that somehow relate to something that could happen without the aid of a supernatural entity. I forgot where I read it.
An amputee growing limbs. This implies an act that is currently beyond our capability, or that goes somewhat beyond what we'd call "within the laws" either it be at the macro level or micro level.
Stories have been spread in the past and even today about Resurrection (not the one where a person's body can behave like in a quantum level, just the simple, dead for 3 days and ta-da!).
There are also stories that have been handed down to a vast community about blind people able to see, lame people able to walk, deaf able to hear, leprosy cured, hormonal imbalance in a female cured, etc. etc.
But of course even video footage can be edited now and no one can believe even the authenticity of UFO footage as being of intelligent design that is beyond human technology. Ghost footage, strange white jumpy fast protoss like being zipping behind a small kid? People say fake.
I guess what I'm saying is, what possible evidence could anyone come up with that will be so clear that a supernatural, sentient (is God capable of subjective experience?) God has revealed himself.
============================
On Tempting God (Putting God to the Test):
--------------------------------------------------------
Asking for proof isn't putting God to the test. To test here means to provoke into doing something to prove supremacy for example or any other thing that can be turned against Him. To provoke is different than to ask for a miracle, help, or enlightenment. I believe.
Matthew 4:1-11 <- Dawkins tempts Jesus? Just kidding.
In any case, the question is somewhat says, "Show me something that I can believe, which others cannot deny ever." I believe this summation is correct, yes?
=======================
TLBarrin:
----------------------------------------------
If I were to answer your question, it is possible to take any knowledge from other sources by investigation as revelation from God. It is crucial though to accept as believers that all we know about God is what is revealed.
"Am I a God at hand, and not far away? Do I not fill the heavens?" or something like that.
But there is a "filter" so to speak, in order to be able to investigate whether the idea presented is in line.
In theology, Principalities, rulers, etc. of the air, come in different flavors and colors. Jesus said something that could be taken in response, "What is not against you, is for you". Regardless the preacher or scientist, the information if validated as truthful can be taken by the believer and establish greater perspectives from that.
This is true in some way since at some text it said something like, "Jesus is the foundation" and there's a message that says something like, "the things God establishes will not be destroyed or will remain" something like that.
In any case, given that there are 9000 levels of denominations, it is safe to conclude that none of us has the single and whole truth, rather each one may contain things that will be shaken off, and things that will remain. It's like water and oil really.
There is though a single truth that when split will kaboom everything around it. An honest theist will be open and flexible, but always watchful.
About why Jesus and his message is superior to others is another topic. This struggle has created apologetics and theologians. And in some form or other it's a big mess. This is evidence enough, that if one is serious in finding God or knowing who and what He is, you don't want to look at things from both inward reflection and objective observation. It has to be of "the fourth dimension" so to speak. That somewhat mysterious knowing one gets from all forms of movement.
=============================
On evolution vs. Creationism
----------------------------------------------------------
2 Peter 3:8
But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
Though this text was in context with the return of Christ and "why he's taking so long", this can be applied also in the creation of the world.
============================
#9 Light prior to Sun and Stars
-------------------------------------------------------
Here's an idea how to answer that Grad:
"Well, gravity must exist first prior to matter coalescing yes? Thus, the matter that light exists must be established first prior to creating Gigantic balls of things that in the process produce things that bounce off things which when entering the eye will be filtered and fed into the brain etc, etc."
It's crazy, I know. :)
======================
#10 Fallibility of Bible figures
--------------------------------------------
This is a common theme. David did something nasty, Solomon, Abraham, Sarah. Let me focus on this.
I think, should we consider Abraham to be real and his experiences real, we can only assume that whoever was talking to him and saying, "Sacrifice your son" is either speaking metaphorically or otherwise it is not the God who promised him a nation out from his seed.
Whoever the God of the old testament is, either it is the actual invisible great unknowable one, or it was someone else claiming to be God. Not necessarily the devil, but hey, the universe is vast, right? :D
God is something that is outside the physical realm, or Universe.
It's like this, when you take out everything ( Universe and all) what's left, or more correctly, who's left is God. When everything is taken out, there's only God.
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
Jainism contains the same argument of the universe and scientific method of living.
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
Core issues that need to be discussed in the first place:
1. Whether the default must be (of origin of things) either nothing or something.
Nothing in my view is only something because of perception. Nothing as an entity or value is just a result of the perception that absence of something is presently true.
Therefore, since the laws we are subjected to as agents of perception always dictates that nothing (granted the above description apply) cannot create anything, it becomes necessary that something must always be existing in order for another something to exist.
The rule then must always proceed (also because of the laws we perceive or observe or are subject to):
1. Degeneration
2. Organization
3. Both
---------------------------------
Bonus mind-fuck material:
Pre-existing complexity but in a different form which leads to the emergence of different systems under another form emerging after the prior (but in a way has always existed because of inevitability due to an overriding law that determines the interactions):
An arching process that as the degradation of one dominant force reaches its stable form (whereby such a process has resulted in the creation/organization of other forms and systems), where stability means that such a force is now in its irreversible and indestructible state but is necessary foundation for others to proceed or remain as they do, another dominant force emerges... eventually all of these will stabilize and only a cycle persists.
In a way it is an ever changing recycling machine but whose function remains as is. Thus the input and output of it is the same, but its own form is constantly morphing or having an internal transformation that will eventually reach a point where it doesn't allow for it to go beyond or fall inadequate. It becomes perpetual motion of changes which is the process by which recycling occurs, but itself is not allowed to diminish or increase in itself.
The overriding law in the beginning here reaches its ultimate condition, which means it can no longer affect in a way it did before due to what it has brought out or created. Like how a blender can no longer crush and mix at a certain point, but can keep running in the background. (This is too simplistic an example though)
--------------------------------------------------
more mind-fuck:
post 914. Googled, "914 numerology" and ta-da!
http://sacredscribesangelnumbers.blogspot.com/2012/01/angel-number-914.html
Number 914 is made up of the attributes and energies of the numbers 9, 1 and 4. Number 9 brings its vibrations of inner-wisdom, serving humanity as a Lightworker, your life path, Universal Spiritual Laws, endings and conclusions, leading by positive example. Number 1 resonates with new beginnings, striving forward, creation, intuition and inspiration, attainment, fulfilment and happiness. Number 4 resonates with hard work, building solid foundations, practicality, worthiness, traditional values and dependability, passion and drive.
Angel Number 914 indicates that you have been working towards making important life changes that will bring about stability and new opportunities that will help you to achieve the successes you desire. These changes have been manifested through your devotion to your passions and Divine life purpose, and will bring you many blessings and rewards. Trust that all will turn out for your highest good.
Coincidence? Heresy? or Simply Mind-fuck?
Or is there stuff they don't want you to know....
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
You know why I believe in evolution?
Matthew 13. (I know that in churches this only is taken to mean about the church and the faith, but I have my own arguments about that notion).
v13-15 Somehow speaks of selective process or law on individuals.
v18-23 Somehow refers to mental and psyche stuff. Also selective or that each person has an in-born thing about them. The sower scatters seed everywhere. Pure random but on specific pre-defined basis upon which things occur.
v24-32 Speaks about two general active patterns of forces and agents. A period where it is necessary for two mutually incompatible things are allowed to endure by an overriding ruler of laws acted upon by the agents of selective process and order. Also speaks about selective process at a certain point that results to things being exterminated.
Also hints something like emergence, and probably permanent state of the universe at a certain point of expansion. Also looks like organism capable of travel in some way inhabiting the great many habitable planets that will eventually be there at this point. (Why use a tree and not a flower and bees eh?) Include 33 here.
v34-35 Where I felt this was not just about the church and faith.
v36-43 One dimension of what is hinted at. But this seems to point out some sort of evolution to a degree that certain laws will change over time. A state is reached where selection occurs of the governing elements. There is also some kind of ultimate point that is reached.
v44-50 Also strongly speaks about selective process. The balanced vs the imba. Selling of other treasures for a new one. And a fine tuning, or seeking of specific 'treasure'. Fire, being a chemical process could mean that there is only recycling that occurs and not damnation. A redistribution of said parts and thus annihilation of identity. A circular persistent state at a certain point where a stable state constitutes all higher forms (selected) and other non-essential forms by definition of the selective process are redistributed. (more clear view, or clarification, of the idea of reincarnation in some way)
v52 Also basis of my argument on this aspect. This also speaks about the nature of these words, the expression thereof, and possible interpretations or appreciation. This also keeps with the theme of what is stated above, and also reiterates selective process and recycling.
(Wtf! right?) Lol. But hey, who knows...
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
Craig is a philosopher that can take either side. He can say what I have to say. In the mean time, Zero Hour: Shockwave exists and must be worshiped.
Oh, yeah, I just met the great Spaghetti Monster. He said, 'If I am, and in me and through me I am, why I am that I am is only due to your limited plate.'
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
Evolution happened in some way or other, but this doesn't really stand to disprove God, only the idea that creation happened in 6 earth days. For all we know there could be quantum days or whatever time scale there is when we go back along with the universe's expansion in reverse.
Do you think that when the universe was 1 hour old, that time in that span is at the rate we have now? Do you think time is constant, or do you accept that it is possible that time is only a description of the interactions somewhere at a fundamental level?
In a religious argument, do you think that when someone seems to talk objectively about creation of everything by God from nothing that the person would be standing on the earth? Or would you rather think that it was like how Revelations is written, which is a recollection of the events or feelings when the person was in that 'dimension'?
To add: Do we really think our interpretation of Revelations is correct in all accounts?
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
It is a question of who is more admirable. Judgment and good sense is not universal when applied, but certain universal human aspects can be used to determine whether a certain activity or state of affair can be called admirable when applied to said universal human stuff.
---------------------------
About the big bang:
Is there really proof that our universe came from that single point? Is it not possible that say an area is energized and from certain points come pop things which then from those points expanded to some degree, which then at a certain point in the future will stabilize?
I mean, how far have we really detected the said thing that is used as proof of expansion? The entirety of the vastness of the universe which we cannot yet explore entirely proposes that we cannot hold this assumption as true, since our observation is not simultaneously from different points in that vastness in its entirety.
Therefore, there is a huge possibility that simultaneous bursts happened or perhaps in some areas sequential ones being consequence of a certain mechanism we yet have to understand like stuff in a quantum level.
Regardless it be a single point origin of everything or simultaneous, it's quite astounding that what is proposed to us now is accepted as valid and true without considering that there might be certain things we don't know yet.
What happens to the God argument if there was multiple bursts or simultaneous emergence of mechanics and dynamics under totally different yet reconcilable laws? What happens to the Atheist argument then?
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
Solved
edit: Post removed for being more a theological question rather than in line with the debate/discussion.
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
When religion goes wrong:
Jesus said something in the line, "Do not weep for me, but weep for your daughters. If they can do this now, how much more when..."
Posted this to point out an extreme. A warning: this video is not for the faint of heart.
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
What was it we were arguing about again? I got lost somewhere.
Can you guys list down your contentions? I will look for someone to answer them, if they can. Just the Judeo-Christian one if that's okay.
#1 God does not exist because...?
#2 The Bible is fiction, all of it, because of ...?
#3 Jesus could have existed but we have no proof of his claims because...?
#4 Why not believe in other Gods in other religions because...?
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
Would it still be a God if you can shake his hands?
Grad, that pic is a blast. I knew it!
\o\ lol /o/
One must wonder though, why are miracles so isolated? I know there are a lot of people having visions in certain places, but I guess there must be a reason why God doesn't just jump in and stir the pond.
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
Charysmatic, as a side thought, your question is probably part of the reason why the theist vs atheist debate will not be resolved anytime soon. The fact that science does not know everything just yet to be able to put an end to the debate once and for all.
Eiviyn, I guess what I'm trying to say is simple and it is in a form of a question with certain parameters.
It's a challenge to how people translate the text. And there's a lot of ways to look at said texts. As an example, your response is an example, in that, though I have no intention of saying the Bible is science, rather that "Is it possible that what's been talked about before was something we are in right now (science), or is part of that which was alluded to in those text, if we accept that they are somewhat divinely inspired?"
In any case, it's true what you say. No science has ever come out of the Bible in a literal, "I read the bible and I discovered the laws of physics", but in another view they call it a some form of revelation. But this goes into arguing with established theology, which would assume certain parameters to be there. That was the context of my post up there.
This one is very interesting:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense on the interpretation: (continuing on the blasphemy)
Isn't it true that Priesthoods were the "scientists" of their time? If you look at it in a way that Shamans, albularios, priests of [deity here], etc. functioned ages and ages ago. Elders were for political functions, etc. etc. Overtime this changes.
Well, at least in tribes you can see this clearly. Shamans would have access to medicine, and would hold secret of the medicine. They have ceremonies to drive "disease causing spirits", which to the microscope is simply just fungus. In a time without proper medicine, these shamans would in some form be very much like science and all its areas today.
Though they were not 100% accurate, they were the only science in those times in some form, weren't they? Now, what if that's what that text was really "seeing"?
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
Nah, it's metaphoric. I don't think the guys 2000 years ago had atomic scale.
9000 years, 7777 years, 70x7 times, it's all symbolic. Asking a tribe somewhere here, who don't have numbers for use will just say, "oh, that's pleanty; oh that's few no deal".
But I see what you did there. :)
Take this for example:
Luke 12:29-31
And do not seek what you are to eat and what you are to drink, nor be worried. For all the nations of the world seek after these things, and your Father knows that you need them. Instead, seek his kingdom, and these things will be added to you.
And the crusades happened flawlessly, and now we have this shit.
It's crazy. Obviously that means science to me. If we can develop technology where we can create 7000 loaves of bread from a machine...
--------------------------------------------------------
this might be blasphemous, but bear with me:
1 Peter 2:9
9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.
1. Priests in the past went into chambers or were the officials trusted to seek the signs of the times, to mix stuff and remove mold in a house, to mix herbs to cure disease.
2. They were entrusted to look into the vast unknown, formulate theories, and test them out with themselves first, then announce to others.
3. Holy - means to be separate, not subjective. Objective. To be different.
"who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light"
possible translation:
"through the laws of nature inexorably evolve intelligence and mental capacity that takes you from mystery into workable theories which seem so strange and yet brilliant."
As Mr. Kaku said, "we are all born scientists..."
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
On 'Ultimate' Proof of God:
Grad, I would not recommend prayer. There are theories that somehow relate to something that could happen without the aid of a supernatural entity. I forgot where I read it.
An amputee growing limbs. This implies an act that is currently beyond our capability, or that goes somewhat beyond what we'd call "within the laws" either it be at the macro level or micro level.
Stories have been spread in the past and even today about Resurrection (not the one where a person's body can behave like in a quantum level, just the simple, dead for 3 days and ta-da!).
There are also stories that have been handed down to a vast community about blind people able to see, lame people able to walk, deaf able to hear, leprosy cured, hormonal imbalance in a female cured, etc. etc.
But of course even video footage can be edited now and no one can believe even the authenticity of UFO footage as being of intelligent design that is beyond human technology. Ghost footage, strange white jumpy fast protoss like being zipping behind a small kid? People say fake.
I guess what I'm saying is, what possible evidence could anyone come up with that will be so clear that a supernatural, sentient (is God capable of subjective experience?) God has revealed himself.
============================
On Tempting God (Putting God to the Test):
--------------------------------------------------------
Asking for proof isn't putting God to the test. To test here means to provoke into doing something to prove supremacy for example or any other thing that can be turned against Him. To provoke is different than to ask for a miracle, help, or enlightenment. I believe.
Matthew 4:1-11 <- Dawkins tempts Jesus? Just kidding.
In any case, the question is somewhat says, "Show me something that I can believe, which others cannot deny ever." I believe this summation is correct, yes?
=======================
TLBarrin:
----------------------------------------------
If I were to answer your question, it is possible to take any knowledge from other sources by investigation as revelation from God. It is crucial though to accept as believers that all we know about God is what is revealed.
"Am I a God at hand, and not far away? Do I not fill the heavens?" or something like that.
But there is a "filter" so to speak, in order to be able to investigate whether the idea presented is in line.
In theology, Principalities, rulers, etc. of the air, come in different flavors and colors. Jesus said something that could be taken in response, "What is not against you, is for you". Regardless the preacher or scientist, the information if validated as truthful can be taken by the believer and establish greater perspectives from that.
This is true in some way since at some text it said something like, "Jesus is the foundation" and there's a message that says something like, "the things God establishes will not be destroyed or will remain" something like that.
In any case, given that there are 9000 levels of denominations, it is safe to conclude that none of us has the single and whole truth, rather each one may contain things that will be shaken off, and things that will remain. It's like water and oil really.
There is though a single truth that when split will kaboom everything around it. An honest theist will be open and flexible, but always watchful.
About why Jesus and his message is superior to others is another topic. This struggle has created apologetics and theologians. And in some form or other it's a big mess. This is evidence enough, that if one is serious in finding God or knowing who and what He is, you don't want to look at things from both inward reflection and objective observation. It has to be of "the fourth dimension" so to speak. That somewhat mysterious knowing one gets from all forms of movement.
=============================
On evolution vs. Creationism
----------------------------------------------------------
2 Peter 3:8
But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
Though this text was in context with the return of Christ and "why he's taking so long", this can be applied also in the creation of the world.
============================
#9 Light prior to Sun and Stars
-------------------------------------------------------
Here's an idea how to answer that Grad:
"Well, gravity must exist first prior to matter coalescing yes? Thus, the matter that light exists must be established first prior to creating Gigantic balls of things that in the process produce things that bounce off things which when entering the eye will be filtered and fed into the brain etc, etc."
It's crazy, I know. :)
======================
#10 Fallibility of Bible figures
--------------------------------------------
This is a common theme. David did something nasty, Solomon, Abraham, Sarah. Let me focus on this.
I think, should we consider Abraham to be real and his experiences real, we can only assume that whoever was talking to him and saying, "Sacrifice your son" is either speaking metaphorically or otherwise it is not the God who promised him a nation out from his seed.
Whoever the God of the old testament is, either it is the actual invisible great unknowable one, or it was someone else claiming to be God. Not necessarily the devil, but hey, the universe is vast, right? :D
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
Honest question:
If you were to ask God for one proof that you consider to be the ultimate, undeniable proof of His existence, what would it be?
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.