Detecting God

Dr. Adequate, Hummm....shall we refer back to the quote which I was responding to? He said this in response to my comment which said: Which Woodsy said here, in message 27: And he was referring to the fact that he doesn't know everything about the origin of our universe, which he believes to have expanded during the Big Bang.So it appeared as though Theodoric was saying that because I worship God, I have to describe perfectly his nature, but since Woodsy doesn't worship the Big Bang, he doesn't have to perfectly describe its nature.

---

I hope this resolved your objection.

Ringo, In what ways can you not confirm the existence of God?...There are certain ways of proving the existence or non-existence of an entity aside from the empirical, experience-driven ways of science. One way to prove the truth of 'standard A' is to show the impossibility of the opposing standard: 'standard B'. You also show that the only way of accounting for our beliefs - both particular and universal - is to believe in 'standard A'.Another point that must be made: Empirical observations sound really good, that is until you realize that they rely on standards that are just as subjective as any. Why don't we think about these subjective standards? I'm not 100% sure; maybe it's because of the god that has been made out of science in (particularly) the last two centuries, as though it stands on perfectly objective truths. But how do these truths shape up to subjectivity test?Let's look at a tree for example. You may have a number of beliefs about how to gain knowledge about the nature of the tree; how to gain a knowledge of the texture of the bark, the color of the leaves, the nature of the photosynthesis cells, or the vascular cells, or the transportation of water etc. etc. These beliefs may involve the use of such mechanisms as your sense of touch, your sense of sight, a microscope (which would ultimately rely on your sense of sight), and other such things.But note that the use of these mechanisms to gain knowledge involves a number of assumptions. For example, in order to go outside and touch the tree, or to observe the color of the leaves, or to observe the cells, you must make a number of assumptions with regards to observations. For example: "I can make observations", "I do have a sense of touch", "I do have a sense of sight", "there is a tree out there to observed", etc. etc. So we see that claims about how knowledge can be gained (epistemology) involve a number of beliefs about reality (metaphysics), beliefs which can be subjective.But suppose you have other mechanisms or standards for proving the veracity of such metaphysical claims (e.g. "I can make observations")? These standards would also involve a number of underlying assumptions. And if in turn, these standards can be proven by another standard, that standard must also undergo the subjectivity test.What is the solution to this dilemma?...In Genesis 1:1, it is stated: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". What is the "beginning" anyways? The beginning is, in human terms, the beginning of time, or the start of time as we know it. Therefore, since God existed in the beginning to create the heavens and the earth, we know that He is not a part of time. He is not carnal. He is not physical. He has no limits. He lies within no bounds. He is not restricted by anything (this would include time), since He is not contained within time.But given this, we still try to corrupt His nature: "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible manand birds and four-footed animals and creeping things." (Romans 1:20-23). This verse can be applied not only to people who worship graven images, but also to people who worship "abstract" images, such as science. Those who worship science would tend to try turn the glory of God into something carnal, and thus corruptible."'I am the God of your fatherthe God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' (Exodus 3:6). In this verse, God is speaking to Moses, long past the time that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were already dead. Note that God does not say, "I was the God of your father" but, "I am the God of your father". Once again, this demonstrates the point that God is not contained nor restricted by time, for He is outside of time.So what implications do these passages have? That God is the ultimate standard, one which all standards refer back to, and a standard beyond which no appeal can be made: "For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him." (Col. 1:16). He has no beginning, nor end; but all observable things that are on the earth do indeed have a beginning, and an end.

"Jesus answered, 'Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.' (John 3:5-8); "You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?" (Matt. 7:16); "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law." (Gal. 5:22).You have placed your ultimate importance and hope in matter. You have ignored the spiritual realm, which is no more subjective, nor any less important, than the scientific method. And, in fact, since the spiritual created the material, the spiritual is far more important...There are no brute facts. Everything has some form or another of subjectivity. But, unfortunately for you, subjectivity does not affect the fact that God exists, and if men are so foolish as to twist and contort God into something which He isn't, then God is not to blame, but man. Edited by sac51495, : diddly-doo-doo

Ringo, Give me an example of a scientific proof for the existence of something. For example: gravity, the sun, etc...We'll see just how objective that proof really is...

hooah, What comprises a feeling? "Facts are facts"...Is this statement truth? I can interpret the 2nd law of thermodynamics ("In a system, a process that occurs will tend to increase the total entropy of the universe.") as saying "In a system of equations, a variable (process) that occurs will tend to increase the total entropy of the equation". This would appear to be a mis-interpretation of what the law says, and the reasons for why it is a mis-interpretation can range from internal contradiction, to contextual conflict, or to arbitrariness. So it is with all mis-interpretations of text: either the reader's interpretation contradicts itself, conflicts with the context, or is arbitrary. So it is with mis-interpretations of the text of the Word of God. But do conflicting interpretations of a text discount the validity of the text? If this was so, I could - just to decrease the reliability of physical laws - interpret physical laws incorrectly, and make them less reliable. And, by the way, none of this is to say that I claim to have the perfect interpretation of Scripture: we all have wrong interpretations, unfortunately, but the way to deal with this is absolutely not to attempt to justify our mis-interpretations by claiming the the text is subjective; rather, we strive towards correct interpretations through discussion, studying, and prayer.Why do there tend to be more mis-interpretations of the Word of God than of physical laws? Because no one has a good reason for wanting to mis-interpret physical laws; but, oftentimes, the text of the Word of God will conflict with a man's anthropocentric ideology, so he will interpret the text in such a way that it does not condemn his anthropocentric actions and ideology."Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthymeditate on these things." (Phil. 4:8)"This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate in it day and night, that you may observe to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success." (Joshua 1:8)"But his delight is in the law of the LORD, and in His law he meditates day and night." (Psalm 1:2)

hooah, How then can you say that love is a feeling, if you don't even know what a feeling is? I wasn't exactly asking a philosophical question...you were supposed to give a material explanation for love, if you are a materialist; if not, then...I don't know what answer you would give. Sure, you can interpret the Word of God to mean whatever you want...but it IS what it IS. Your - or anybody else' interpretation for that matter - interpretation does not change what it IS:

quote:

---

And God said to Moses, I AM WHO I AM. And He said, Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ~ Exodus 3:14

---

I would agree that you should not question God. Question me? Yes....This is why I try to quote Scripture as much as a can on here: I know that my words have no power whatsoever, and that my words can be questioned: but the Word of God is not to be questioned. No interpretation of significance is needed to understand this verse: "The fool has said in his heart,'There is no God.' They are corrupt, They have done abominable works, There is none who does good." (Psalm 14:1).Now you can read those words and try to understand what they mean, but if you come up with a wrong interpretation, then it is your own fault, just as it was my own fault that I came up with such a faulty interpretation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.Who's to say what the "correct" interpretation of the verse is? God is, not me. God and God alone gets to judge people: "Fear God and keep His commandments, for this is man’s all. For God will bring every work into judgment, including every secret thing, whether good or evil." [emphasis mine](Ecc. 12:13-14); "But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who 'will render to each one according to his deeds'". (Romans 2:15-16).Do I think I have it all right?

quote:

---

Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me. Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended; but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead, I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. Therefore let us, as many as are mature, have this mind; and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal even this to you. Nevertheless, to the degree that we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us be of the same mind. ~ Philippians 3:12-16

---

But certainly I can reason with you, and tell you why I think my interpretation of the text is, (1), in better accordance with the context, (2), logically sound, and (3), sensible (perhaps others could be listed): "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear" (1 Peter 3:15). And you might be inclined, perhaps, to try and convince me that gravity really does exist, so that I don't kill myself: I also am trying to convince you that God really does exist, as does the Word (logos). I can just as well say that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is exclusively words...But I believe that the Word of God is "living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." (Heb. 4:12).

Ringo, No, because that was not my interpretation. My interpretation is that the universe is "theocentric", by virtue of the fact that God created it.

jar, Paul said that if anybody else preached a gospel other than the one that they (Paul, Peter, John, Matthew, etc.) preached, that that man should be accursed...the men who wrote the Bible were inspired by God, so that the words were products not of men, but of God. What basis is there for believing the words in the Bible to be any more true than other so-called inspired writings? By deciding whether or not they conflict with God's Law, which He wrote down with His own finger. What reason do I have for believing God's Law and the books that it is put in to be true? By the impossibility of the contrary.

bluescat, "These words the LORD spoke to all your assembly, in the mountain from the midst of the fire, the cloud, and the thick darkness, with a loud voice; and He added no more. And He wrote them on two tablets of stone and gave them to me." [emphasis mine], (Deut. 5:22).I would be interested to know upon what grounds you claim that there was no alphabet (or "alephbet").