Approaches to the discovery of God?

[kx000]

You're back already, having found nothing extra-, beyond-, or supernatural?

Isn't the Guy supposed to be everywhere, doing everything?

Considering his unknown nature and abilities we can not tell if he is plain absent, or wisely tucked away.

How does one possibly do everything? Why would one do everything?

First where did you find the ideas for Gods and Angels Second if the those books are not factual then they are fiction. Third, the faithful follow those religious text

Good post, Saturnine.

If not for a Catholic background most likely I would have imagined something of the sort me included. Thats faith, friend. I seek wisdom from any sacred text, that being any text I see as sacred.

 

[kx000]

What you should be asking yourself is why you need to find God. What's the purpose? How is your life less than complete without one, and how does one then make it complete?

God found me? Im just a good guy, sorry to be bold. Idk what a life with God would be like? Idk if he's there. Belief, confidence, hope, SCIENCE. Apply those daily! That will help you find what your looking for.

I understand why people born into faith would feel like it's a part of their identity, but people who don't seem to subscribe to any particular religion and simply try to redefine "God" as wisdom or love or whatever frustrate me. Just leave it out.

Angels transcend religion. Im not sure where they kicked up as Faith, Hope, Science, etc. but it caught my imagination. Who is Jesus, and who is God? I was born into a Catholic family, religion should not be confused as faith.

‘God’ Disproved…

Stuff Forever admits of no creation, and thus no Creator, and From Nothing is not God, but the opposite; so, in conjunction, these two options disprove 'God', since they are the only options, one of which must be true, which is a great accomplishment; so, all God threads and God ideas are now shown to be wrong, as of July 8, 2012.

No. God is greater, even if it rains ducks you can't prove God exist.

Yes, assume there isn't until there is evidence in favor of the proposition.

I expect better. Assumption is fine, so long as you took a side before any facts where shared thereon and stood with it until something else told you better, if something ever did tell you better. Assumption, underrated.

Good night.

 

[Saturnine Pariah]

Good post, Saturnine.

If not for a Catholic background most likely I would have imagined something of the sort me included. Thats faith, friend. I seek wisdom from any sacred text, that being any text I see as sacred.

Happy to oblige.

 

[SciWriter]

No. God is greater, even if it rains ducks you can't prove God exist.

No, for that is what you are trying to prove, so you can't use it ahead of time as an input.

 

[Balerion]

God found me? Im just a good guy, sorry to be bold. Idk what a life with God would be like? Idk if he's there. Belief, confidence, hope, SCIENCE. Apply those daily! That will help you find what your looking for.



Angels transcend religion. Im not sure where they kicked up as Faith, Hope, Science, etc. but it caught my imagination. Who is Jesus, and who is God? I was born into a Catholic family, religion should not be confused as faith.

None of these makes any sense. Could you try to make your answer a little more coherent?

 

[spidergoat]

...



I expect better. Assumption is fine, so long as you took a side before any facts where shared thereon and stood with it until something else told you better, if something ever did tell you better. Assumption, underrated.

....

That's what we do in science. An hypothesis cannot be assumed to be correct until some facts about it are revealed.

 

[spidergoat]

Considering his unknown nature and abilities we can not tell if he is plain absent, or wisely tucked away...

It is not logical to believe in a God that cannot be distinguished from the absence of God.

 

[gmilam]

Considering his unknown nature and abilities we can not tell if he is plain absent, or wisely tucked away.

How will you know if you've found it if you don't know what you're looking for?

 

[kx000]

No, for that is what you are trying to prove, so you can't use it ahead of time as an input.

Ahead of time for what?

Just be moral to my liking, and everything will be okay.

 

[kx000]

That's what we do in science. An hypothesis cannot be assumed to be correct until some facts about it are revealed.

I never made an assumption, I just believe.

 

[kx000]

It is not logical to believe in a God that cannot be distinguished from the absence of God.

How so?

 

[spidergoat]

I never made an assumption, I just believe.

Why?

 

[kx000]

Why?

Why do I have faith in God? Just do, enough said.

 

[wlminex]

God is (at least) the underlying order (natural laws?) of the universe that we (humans) continue to observe and discover. It is not by statistical chance that the universe operates according to these natural laws. Is there an even further underlying 'intellegence' directing this natural order? . . . That's what we argue here.

 

[kx000]

Is there an even further underlying 'intellegence' directing this natural order? . . . That's what we argue here.

I think there is a consciousness there, He doesn't need to be directing it. Nature.

Then again, how does this "consciousness" necessarily have grand powers which he would need to sway nature, other than if he had learned these extra-natural powers in his lifetime?

Could he have came fully loaded with thunder bolts, and dump trucks?

 

[spidergoat]

Why do I have faith in God? Just do, enough said.

Oh, I didn't know who I was talking to. Why is everyone changing their name all of a sudden?

 

[wlminex]

I think there is a consciousness there, He doesn't need to be directing it. Nature.

Then again, how does this "consciousness" necessarily have grand powers which he would need to sway nature, other than if he had learned these extra-natural powers in his lifetime?

Could he have came fully loaded with thunder bolts, and dump trucks?

My take? . . . . order (as well as chaos?) exists at the quantum scale. Ordering chaos creates emergent patterns within the quantum. This order may contribute to be strings, branes, etc. . . or other quantum-level products. The emergent patterns (order) weakly interact (e.g., Casimir Effect?) with, and moderate . . . and possibly . . . 'direct' or influence actions in matter. Animal (and other?)consciousness may be a product of quantum interactions (entanglements?) . . . . Google "Quantum Consciousness" for some tangible links on this.

 

[Jan Ardena]

How does one go about finding God without considering any bible?

I doubt one can find God with any bible, without finding God (in some aspect) without the aid of anything or anyone.
I think the idea of looking for God outside of ones own self, has been cleverly introduced by a higher intelligence, inimical towards God. IOW, I think we have been, and are being, fooled.

How to contact God within us, is the stuff of scriptures, and people who are adept in the methodology of the instruction.
just like if you want to know science, then you will find it in the science books, and people who are adept in science.

jan.

 

[youreyes]

How does one go about finding God without considering any bible?

By knowing that a part of God is in us all, we can develop on the characteristics within ourselves we wish God to be for us. Developing our power of will, kindness and forgiveness towards others, the goal to strive for the harmony and love for us. The more characteristics we develop that we want God to have, a compassion for ourselves and everyone in this universe, the more part of God we will become.

 

[wellwisher]

If you had a dream, this would be real in the sense of neurons firing to create an internally induced sensory experience with specific details. Everyone has had dreams so this is real. Although this is real, there would be no way you could prove the details of that dream, scientifically.

Also, since dreams come and go and constantly change, there would be no way to repeat this dream in all the same details for a repeatable scientific experiment. Therefore according to the scientific method, what was real in all its details cannot be proven. This is due to the limitation of the scientific method and not the limitation of the dream or dreamer.

If you had that dream and knew you had it, it does not matter if science can't see this internal expression. This is beyond its capacity at this time. To the outsider, your hanging onto that which cannot be proven, scientifically, would appear to be based on faith. But is was based on a real experience, beyond science to confirm.

There are things of the mind that can only be perceived within the first person, which do not perform, ideally, for the scientific third person.

If religious experiences occurred within the same neural matrix as dreams, like the details of dreams, we cannot prove this with science as we know. The scientific method was not designed for this type of data. It was designed for things outside the mind. Maybe we need to upgrade the scientific method or add a disclaimer that says certain things are beyond the current method. There is an entire frontier of data beyond the current scientific method. What would need to change is the third person scientist would need also experience in the first person; scientist and experiment at the same time.

A good analogy is studying toothache pain. You can do this from the third person, as an observer, but something would be missing. If you could have a tooth drilled so you had the pain, while also observing the phenomena in question, you would take the science further, than the safety of third person. The scientific method does not do first and third at the same time, because it is too hard. Third person is easier.