God does exist.

[MarcAC]

Faith is Intrinsic

Raithere

This version of the question is phrased somewhat differently and the assumption is hidden even more deeply than before but let's take a look. What is assumed in both of these question is that there is an underlying reason or meaning as to why things are the way they are. Essentially, you are beginning with a assumption that there is a meaning to existence beyond itself, beyond the simple fact of existence.

I gather you assume there isn't? Good question though I must admit. But can you pose a logical argument which would discredit a meaning to existence itself? Man's quest for knowledge (science, religion) is to find meaning in his existence. Surely you ask this same question. Don;t you?
Xelios

I'm sorry MarcAC, but I cannot accept "God did it." as a reasonable answer to any hole in scientific knowlege. [...] . And what about all the holes in religious knowlege? Take Noah's flood for example.

Your choice. Well I'm a Christian. I will only debate about 'holes' in Christianity. What 'hole' is there in Noah's Flood?

Care to point a few of these things out?

I'm a novice here but, math sometimes doesn't work within itself; what is the square root of - 4? I'll provide more.

There is no need for faith concerning math. Or can you demonstrate how faith is a fundemental requirement for accepting math?

Your faith lies in your basic assumption that mathematics is the 'universal language'. Thus you assume that anything which doesn't fit a current mathematical model is improbable [impossible for the real zealots]. However, math is based soley on our current knowledge. Interestingly, when a mathematician encounters a paradox (in his field) he has no problem inventing something totally new to overcome it. However, when he meets a paradox concerning, say, God? - he simply leaves it at acontradiction [well an atheist mathematician I should say - when it comes to God their minds just narrow].
French

God can do anything except prohibit his own ability. Does this satisfy your rational?

No. God can do anything including limit his ability to do something. Our 'petty' little minds and, thus, logic can barely grasp it. Just like we can barely grasp how truly far pluto is away from us. Or what infinity is. Let's say he is infinitely self regulating.

There must be something which guides his choices and actions, because otherwise he would be random and irratic changing personalities, abilities, and anything else, all the time.

I agree. As far as I know it is love.

He must have some reasoning set that interprets his vast understanding, knowlege, and love.

Can you define the nature of love? What causes it in human beings?

Certainty in the mind is the most probable. But in any case, why is that (dont tell me faith, tell me the reason for your faith)?

Where a certainty exists t here is effectively no probability. I look to cosmogony. How did the universe start? It either started itself [consider laws of conservation of energy in which case God is equally plausible], or it could have been big banging and big crunching from infinity (in which case God is equally plausible), or it involved some higher dimensional events [in which case where did those dimensions come from?]. I see no reason not to believe. There are many other things that have happened in my life which make me know that Christianity is the true religion (Ask any theist with considerable scientific knowledge and acceptance of the usefullness of science - faith isn't easy). I've seen things, my trusted acquaintances have relayed experiences to me, which I can believe (I mostly trust what I have seen). Virgin Marys appearing in cloud formations and anywhere else don't really appeal to me. The Bible stresses the importance of faith. You can't function without it.

Does it open up possibilities that science says cannot happen? Does it open up the possibility that god doesn't want us to pray to him? Does it open up the possibility that you don't exist? Does it open up the possibility that atoms really don't exist? Does it open up the possibility that the bible is incorrect?

I've never seen an atom [atoms do not necessarily have to exist]. Well, some images have come close, but they are all computer generated and thus subject to mathematical interpretation. I will never accept a scientific 'impossibility' as such (you know our philosophy about 2000 yrs ago). The other questions were obviously for a humourus touch. Nice.

Oh but he does. According to you it adds infinite complexity (since god is infinitely complex..)...

Perspective again.

If our soul is a "sense" then it would have to be recorded in our memory, or is our soul a continuous input of "faith"?

The soul is detached from the mind. Soul is linked to mind by Spirit. About 'input of "faith"'... I don't know, maybe? Let's look at your skepticism this way - you will never realise your artistic ability until you get the tools and start working.

Science has successfully led to consistent observations and working technology that could not have been done with guess and check.

When you speak of science here I assume you are referring to physics [cosmology], most obseervations have a mathematical basis. Science is replete with serendipity.

No. I said we think, therefore we exist. Explain to me exactly how I could think, yet not exist...

Thus I'm to assume that all microbial and non-sentient forms of life could possibly not exist right? Or would you say they do not think, therefore they exist?

I don't have faith in science, i have understanding.

Faith is intrinsic. It is there in your understanding.

"Where di I imply or state that I understood your nature?"

---->>"You should understand the nature of those you are arguing with before you argue with them"

O..k. fine. Do you see me making bold assertions about you, specifically, without evidence to back it up? If so present it as you did above please - my memory might need some honing.

Why exactly would it help god to punish people anyway?

Here you assume God [... if He existed... happy?], is all for himself - in which case we wouldn't exist. Let's say people are punishing themselves. Christ died for all (in other words the hell that all the billions of humans would have suffered, he suffered it for us). You have that choice to accept the gift or not.

 

[whatsupyall]

Originally posted by Xelios
What I challenge you to do is go to court, put forth your 'evidence' for God's existance and let the court settle it. After all, the entire court system is founded on evidence, it should have the definition of evidence quite correct. I will guarantee you the ruling would not be in your favor.

But of course, that would require you to become uncomfortable and admit you cannot prove God's existance any more than the existance of a purple squid monkey, so I highly doubt you will even attempt what I have suggested.

You know what SINCE YOU ARE SO SO STUBBORN....I will repeat the same questions I posted before..If you can prove to me evolution ocured, then I will prove to you God created the world..
If you can prove to me King Henry, shakespeare, and Napoleon exist, then I will prove to you God exist...
Why must I do these? Because I NEED TO KNOW THE EVIDENCE THAT IS VALID TO YOU BEFORE I CAN PRESENT MY EVIDENCE TO BE VALID....
AGAIN....AS I ASKED THIS QUESTIONS BEFORE, YOU CANNOT PROVE TO ME THEY EXIST AND EVOLUTION OCCURED, AND BECAUSE OF THAT, NO WONDER WHY YOU ALSO DONT BELIEVE IN GOD BECAUSE NO EVIDENCE IS VALID TO YOU.....NOT ONLY SHAKESPEARE AND GOD IS A MYTH TO YOU KIDS, EVIDENCE IS ALSO A MYTH...........

NOTE: I KNOW FOR A FACT YOU WILL SKIP MY QUESTION WHEN I SAID "PROVE TO ME SHAKESPEARE EXIST..."

 

[whatsupyall]

Originally posted by Frencheneesz


"Well then, indeed there are no evidence that God does not exist either, why should you also BELIEVE that God dont exist? "

All true scientists assume that nothing exists FIRST. THEN we see what proof we can get that each thing exists. We build up a large knowelge of what exists this way.

who are these so-called "true scientist" in which assumes "Nothing exist FIRST"...before making these claims, please provide logical evidence for it.....
Are you simply stating "earth didnt exist first before we can provide how it exist?"....LOL...
AGAIN give me the reasons why this must be so....

Originally posted by Frencheneesz

If we assumed that EVERYTHING exists and figure out what DOESN"T exist, we'd have many many problems. Why exactly do you NOT believe in the super space monkey that throws asteriods? We disbelieve something without proof for the same reason you disblieve the monkey exists.

Frenchy, AGAIN FOR THE THOUSAND TIMES, WHOEVER TALKED ABOUT SUPER SPACE MONKEY OR GIANT PURPLE SQUID MONKEY? THAT IS THE BEST OF THE BEST ARGUMENTS ATHIEST CAN POST...WE ARE TALKING ABOUT "INTELLIGENT DESIGNER" IN WHICH IS PROVEN, PROVEN AS MUCH AS EVOLUTION AND SHAKESPEARE'S EXISTENCE........

Originally posted by Frencheneesz

TruthSeeker:

"A miracle can make your laws contradictory... not so hard to see one... you just need to look in the right place"

Why, then, hasn't scientific studies been succesfullly conducted to verify that?

Yes it has, THERE ARE MANY SCIENTIST WHO DOCUMENTED THE TRUTH BEHIN MIRACLES....YOU ARE ASKING THE ATHEIST SCIENTIST, WHY DONT YOU ASK THE CHRISTIANS SCIENTIST OR THOSE WHO DOCUMENTED MIRACLES.....

 

[Raithere]

Meaning

Originally posted by MarcAC
I gather you assume there isn't? Good question though I must admit. But can you pose a logical argument which would discredit a meaning to existence itself? Man's quest for knowledge (science, religion) is to find meaning in his existence. Surely you ask this same question. Don;t you?

Man does indeed seek meaning to existence. However, man himself is within existence, he is a part of it. In this, I agree that there is meaning to existence within the mind of man. That is, there is an isomorphic relationship between those models we build in our minds and convey to each other and the 'reality' of existence.

However, the meaning that you are insisting upon is beyond existence itself. As to that personally I am undecided but doubtful. As to a refutation I would first have to see an argument toward the assertion before I could refute it. Such is the nature of such assertions that they must be demonstrated through argument or simply declared assumptions.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by whatsupyall
THERE ARE MANY SCIENTIST WHO DOCUMENTED THE TRUTH BEHIN MIRACLES

Why don't you provide the some of these scientifically documented miracles? Please include the complete study and analysis and, if available, any critical treatments of the study.
Please also include the name and issue of the professional journal in which it appeared.

~Raithere

 

[Xelios]

What 'hole' is there in Noah's Flood?

For a partially complete list of the holes, check out http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

I'm a novice here but, math sometimes doesn't work within itself; what is the square root of - 4? I'll provide more.

It's not that it doesn't work, it's that an answer to that does not exist. It is undefined. Two equal numbers multiplied by eachother (or squared) cannot equal a negative number. It's just a law of math. We can draw up imaginary numbers that will in fact give you an answer to this question, but using 'real' numbers the answer is undefined.

Thus you assume that anything which doesn't fit a current mathematical model is improbable

Well yes, but chances are when we find something that does not fit our current mathematical model we will have the ability to either change this model accordingly or add to it by way of new equations. One does not make an assumption when asking what 2+2 equals. Two objects added to two other objects will always equal four objects, there really is no relevant assumption here. The only assumptions arise when we consider things that are not presently in our mathematical model. However, most things inside the model require no assumptions as long as you have the information needed to solve the problem.

Can you define the nature of love? What causes it in human beings?

If I may interject; chemical imbalances.

 

[wesmorris]

just a side note from the post above: the square root of -4 is 2i. The answer does not seem intuitive but it is so nonetheless. This value is used in practical application every day.

 

[whatsupyall]

I appreciate that yur ignoring me xelios..I am getting fed up talking to a parrot..
I say "Subject B is evidence of God"..
Then you say "you have no evidence of God"".
I say "I typed it, read above."
Then you say "No you didnt type any evidence".
Then I say "Yes I did! I typed it, read above!".
Then you say "No you didnt.."
Then I say "Here, ill type it again, subject B is evidence of God".
Then you say "whatever, subject B is not evidence because I say so, you have no evidence at all! What about Giant purple squid monkey!!"...

Etc. etc..
Thats how it is like talking to atheists, you indeed have confirmed that Jesus words are true "THEY HAVE EARS BUT CANT HEAR, HAVE EYES BUT CANT SEE"..

So thank you for ognoring me....You have done a good job of proving that the spirit of lies exist....

 

[spuriousmonkey]

now you know what it is like when a scientist talks to a creationist about evolution, mr. whatsup

 

[wesmorris]

Hey whatsup. Did it ever occur to you that others might not be compelled by the evidence that compells you. For instance, maybe I think your insistance that the evidence you present is valid, is stupid. Maybe I think that you'd have to be an idiot to infer the existence of god from the evidence you present. Is it possible, do you think, that other people don't have to think that your evidence is compelling, though apparently it really works for you?

 

[wesmorris]

You know why science geeks, athiests and agnostics refuse to succumb to the statement "God did it."?

It is very simple. If you answer "God did it." you are a huge wuss. It's a simple, silly answer. Maybe it's true, maybe it isn't, but to a reasonable being all possibilities must be exhausted before accepting something so uh... well, seems stupid to me. Seems like you don't have the intellect, will or creativity to consider other possibilities. That doesn't make you a bad person, it just makes you a little pathetic from the perspective of a person who is compelled to seek objective truth.

I mean really, if you are interested in seeking objective truth, isn't it inherent that you HAVE to maintain agnosticism? Refute that? Everything else is just justifying your assumptions.

Comments?

 

[MarcAC]

Real?

Originally posted by Xelios

It's not that it doesn't work, it's that an answer to that does not exist. It is undefined. Two equal numbers multiplied by eachother (or squared) cannot equal a negative number. It's just a law of math. We can draw up imaginary numbers that will in fact give you an answer to this question, but using 'real' numbers the answer is undefined.

O.k., thus the invention 'i'. But is any number really real? Only positive integers are tangible. If you have four drops of water and add them you get 1 drop (yeah it's going to be big). Frankly, I think all numbers are as real as 'i' and 'infinity' are, and science is built on these. The observed enviironment is like an archipelago of islands, you will build bridges so that you can link the islands [science], then you build so many bridges [fundamental truths] and never figure out that you could build a submarine, airplane, or boat.

Well yes, but chances are when we find something that does not fit our current mathematical model we will have the ability to either change this model accordingly or add to it by way of new equations.

God? Well God can fit in quite well actually.

If I may interject; chemical imbalances.

The iinteresting thing about love is that it never fades. The whole body goes - including the brain - memory, neurons - love stays. Why would it not change as the body changes? Everything else does.

 

[MarcAC]

Evidence is coming...

Originally posted by Raithere

However, the meaning that you are insisting upon is beyond existence itself. As to that personally I am undecided but doubtful. As to a refutation I would first have to see an argument toward the assertion before I could refute it. Such is the nature of such assertions that they must be demonstrated through argument or simply declared assumptions.

If you are referring to God He does interact with our 'existence', whether you think he is truly beyond it depends on perspective, again - I like the direction in which string theorists are going. You seemingly are not aware of His presence. So you woudln't know. The bible describes human beings as consisting of more than a three dimensional make-up. If scientists find evidence of the super particles which they predict will come from other dimensions. who knows, you might be nudged in the right direction.

 

[Frencheneesz]

MarcAC:

"God can do anything including limit his ability to do something. Our 'petty' little minds and, thus, logic can barely grasp it."

Our minds can grasp it quite well, it just so happens that what you are describing to me is impossible (like it is for something to be in two places at once). ok, lets just say god can do anything, k? God creates a rock, and says that this is a rock which he CAN not pick up. THUS he cannot do everything NOW (since he created something that he cannot do). So either god is already limited by the fact that he cannot create such a rock, OR that god is unlimited until he creates the rock. In the second example, god would be limiting himself yes. Which one do you like better?

"I agree. As far as I know it is love."

love doesn't govern anything. Love is a simple word. To describe the nature of a thing usually involves a few if/then statements not ever one word. Im pretty sure you DON'T know the nature of god.

"Can you define the nature of love? What causes it in human beings?"

The nature of love is a bit hard to describe as you might have thought, and the causes for it are a bit beyond current understanding. Love is many different feelings and usually a combination of some of these many. Usually love comes with the wish for the well being of the creature or thing that is associated with the feeling. Love in humans is caused by certain neural releases of chemicals that make one feel a certain "good" feeling, which causes them to love the creature or thing causing the unseen chemical release. Don't tell me it comes from the soul, now.

"It either started itself [consider laws of conservation of energy in which case God is equally plausible], or it could have been big banging and big crunching from infinity (in which case God is equally plausible), or it involved some higher dimensional events [in which case where did those dimensions come from?]."

These are not the only choices. Whenever you ask a "where did this come from" question, remember that your answer for god is that he has always existed. We can use that one just as you can. God is equally plausible in any sitution. Yet there is no proof for him. Why is it so bad to wait until god gives us a CLEAR and UNMISTAKABLE sign that he exists to start believing in him? Why MUST we have faith or go to hell?

"The Bible stresses the importance of faith. You can't function without it."

Bullshit. Thiests always talk about faith. I know that faith doesn't come out of nowhere. There are always reasons in the mind to HAVE this "faith". You, most likely, have faith in god because you see that as the only plausible way you can think of that makes sense given your input. It has nothing to do with the soul or anything else that science has conveniently no way of testing for. The problem is that your reasons go either unstated (because we "won't understand") or you are unable to verbally state them. I don't have faith. I simply don't have faith exept in the most fundemental and ineveitable places (senses and reasoning). If I can get you to admit that there is no substantial and conclusive evidence that god exists, then I'll be happy.

"I've never seen an atom "

We believe atoms exist the way they do (probably with a bit of error here and there), BECAUSE it works so well with the observed evidence and other scientific theories. God is a wild card, it is like saying "things happen because they do". God can make anything happen, so anything could be possible. The fact is that not everything is possible and we live in working proof of that. Connected to this is your next quote:

"I will never accept a scientific 'impossibility' as such"

Obviously then, not everything is possible with god. Science assumes that everything it has not proven is false (especially now that we have gained such broad understanding). with relation to using them for hypotheses (unproven hypothises are still tested and it is not based on faith that the scientist believes in his hypothesis. It is because that is the most logical way that scientist could think of, noone will take it for granted until he proves it however). One last thing a scientist must take on faith is the AVERAGE honesty of other scientists. Once an experiment is repeated hundreds of times, a scientist can assume that those experiments were not all the same lie from 100 different people, so its not exactly faith, but very close.

"you know our philosophy about 2000 yrs ago"

you keep mentioning this, what exactly are you refering to?

"When you speak of science here I assume you are referring to physics [cosmology], most obseervations have a mathematical basis. "

Science in general. All science theories and practices have been proven useful by many many experiments done by many scientists around the world.

"Thus I'm to assume that all microbial and non-sentient forms of life could possibly not exist right? "

When I said "we" i meant I. I can't prove to you that I think, and I can't be proven that anyone else thinks. I think therfore I am. Anything but my mind can (TO ME) possibly not exist, even my body and my brain (to assume that the mind is working on another level). The only thing I know for a fact is that my thought patterns exist.

"Faith is intrinsic. It is there in your understanding."

Faith in what. You use words as if they apply to everything, they usually don't. Why would I need faith?

"Here you assume God [... if He existed... happy?], is all for himself - in which case we wouldn't exist."

Why not? Maybe god set the universe in motion but doesn't care about us... Why does god have to be the high and mighty christian picture of him? This ALL has to do with god's 'nature'. Why would he create us? Its not for goodwill, before we exist he would not love us. Is god's sole purpose in the universe to serve the human race? The entire premise of a christian god makes no sense to me at all. That one god created only mankind and no other sentient race. That god somehow cares if we bow our heads in fear of him. That god can do anything yet wories himself over us. That god is good, yet he wants us to have freewill to fuck ourselves up. That god somehow would send us to hell just because we didn't believe in him..

I'm still fuzzy on what kind of god exactly you believe in. Is it the bible fire and brimstone god that "loves" all people yet sends people who don't believe to eternal suffering.... What good would the eternal suffering of people do for mankind? What good would it do ANYONE!??? Punishment doesn't do any good except to prevent FUTURE crimes, it does no good for past ones.

"You have that choice to accept the gift or not."

What gift? The gift of life? I don't think I had any choice in the matter, but if god wants thanks hes going to have to come down and ask for it. He gives us the un asked for gift of life, and then tacks on hell for everyone that doesn't blindly believe that he exists.... What kind of a gift is life if the most probable outcome is eternal damnation?

 

[Frencheneesz]

Whatsupimanidiot:

"who are these so-called "true scientist" in which assumes "Nothing exist FIRST"...before making these claims, please provide logical evidence for it..... "

what proof do I need? Its the scientific method, not a fact.

"Are you simply stating "earth didnt exist first before we can provide how it exist?""

No im not. Im simply stating that "we don't believe in the existance of earth before we can prove that it DOES exist". Needless to say, the proof is very easy to come by.

"Frenchy, AGAIN FOR THE THOUSAND TIMES"

Whatsup, again for the thousanTH TIME, the phrase is "for the thousanTH TIME"! Notice the th and the singular voice of time! dumbass.

By the way, I did'nt read your caps ramble past that.

"THERE ARE MANY SCIENTIST WHO DOCUMENTED THE TRUTH BEHIN MIRACLES."

Give me citings (something like links, etc.)

 

[TruthSeeker]

Frencheneesz,

love doesn't govern anything. Love is a simple word. To describe the nature of a thing usually involves a few if/then statements not ever one word. Im pretty sure you DON'T know the nature of god.

Love is God's kind of faith. And the Love Marc was speaking of is certainly not the love you know... (from TV...?)

This is the Love he was speaking about...

1 Corinthians 13

The Excellence of Love

"1 If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
2 If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.
3 And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.
4 Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant,
5 does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered,
6 does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth;
7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
8 Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away.
9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part;
10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.
11 When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.
12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.
13 But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love. "

 

[Jenyar]

Take note that these properties describe ways of acting and doing, these aren't feelings that can be explained away as chemical reactions. This is God's kind of love.

 

[Xelios]

Let me ask you then Jenyar, when you feel mad, you act differently right? Does this madness come from Satan? When you're sad you cry, do these tears come from Satan? From God? How about when you're excited and you show it through facial expressions and by waving your arms in the air, does this come from God or Satan? Or if you dislike a person, and you act differently toward them than you would a person you liked. Where does this come from? How about loving a person and acting nicely toward them, and caring for them?

These can all be explained chemically. Upon seeing an image your brain produces more or less of a certain chemical, this then influences everything you do. You may think there is some underlying force that must be present controlling your actions, but nothing of the sort has been detected, and it appears nothing of the sort is needed either.

 

[Jenyar]

Let me clarify this: I am not, nor do I think I am, anything more or less than human. I have studied my share of microbiology and medicine, and I have no illusions about the role of chemicals and autonomic reactions in my body. BUT I am not ruled by them, and I don't think you mean to say that you are. I have as much free will as anybody, but I am not ruled by them. One of the properties highly valued in the Bible is self-control. It is also quite evident in 1.Cor.13. I do not deny that I lose my self-control, or act differently than I know I should sometimes - but I still have the choice, when it comes down to it, how I act and react. Nobody can force me to feel patronized, lonely, angry, etc. They can provoke or tempt me (excuse the biblical word), just like someone can torture a soldier for information he knows he should not give. But I do not fear those emotions, because I have realised control is an illusion anyway. The best I can do is know the consequences, and thank God for showing them to me so that I might learn. People often ask why the Bible is so full of very human emotions and faults, wars and apparent injustice; it is so that we can learn from the mistakes of people who were clodely involved in God's plans, so that we can see the kind of things people do, and how they can be interpreted as either from God or from Satan. You can see both sides of the story. That is why the Bible is so illuminating to me: I can see what sin is, what punishment is, what provokes God's anger, and how Jesus made a difference. I am a follower of that difference, and I have seen it in my own and in my friend's lives.

The "underlying force" you refer to may be my conscience. Most people can cultivate a conscience - they do not need religion for that, or even education, but they do need to be able to recognise the laws by which the conscience gets its voice and its authority. A moral man might recognise the authority of his consience, a philanthropist or altruistic person might even recognise the authority and vulnerability of another person's conscience. (I think it was Paul who said he does not eat meat if it might offend someone conscience). But there is a higher authority to my conscience, and that is God (more precisely, the Holy Spirit).

The Bible does cultivate the conscience ("this book has great value in cultivating the truth, righting wrongs...", etc.), but I believe that the Holy Spirit is more than that - that some emotions and loves can be expressed in words that cannot be spoken - the place where meaning comes from. That is why speaking in tongues was a common sign of the presence of the Holy Spirit, the meaning and its understanding was more important than the specific language spoken. The spirit of love, the intentions and the will to change and be held accountable to more than yourself, do not come from physical reward, rational choice or even natural emotion or chemical process.

What is more important? Detecting love on an oscilloscope, or seeing it change someone's life? God's love has changed my life, is changing my life and will change my life. I have a real feeling of an old person dying to what he once needed or persued for pleasure, and the birth and childlike qualities of a new person who is sensitive to God's will, raw with emotion, but with a clear vision (faith) in a future that cannot be attained by natural instinct or consequence (hope). It is both a painful death and a difficult birth, but that is how I see it. It seems endless while it's going on, but unlike like a newborn baby that does not understand that what it is receiving is love, or that it will grow up someday, I have this urge to know it and share it. I can bet you that this urge will not show up on an encephalogram, or change a doctor's life it it did. I'm human and I love it

Here is some peripheral reading. Sorry for the long post! I'm not trying to indoctrinate anyone, but I find it fascinating and exhilirating that my ideas aren't original:

1 Corinthians 9:20
To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.

Romans 7
An Illustration From Marriage
1Do you not know, brothers--for I am speaking to men who know the law--that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives? 2For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. 3So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man.
4So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. 5For when we were controlled by the sinful nature,[1] the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. 6But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

Struggling With Sin
7What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet." 8But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.
11For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. 13Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.
14We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do--this I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
21So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God--through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

 

[Raithere]

Re: Evidence is coming...

Originally posted by MarcAC
If you are referring to God He does interact with our 'existence', whether you think he is truly beyond it depends on perspective

By beyond I did not mean non-interactive but that you conception of God is greater (beyond the bounds) than the Universe. Of course, I'm assuming you're not Pan/Cosmotheistic... in which case God would be the Universe.

You seemingly are not aware of His presence. So you woudln't know.

It depends on what you're referring to. I'm not aware of any condition though that leads me to believe there is a conscious supernatural force manipulating reality towards it's own ends.

The bible describes human beings as consisting of more than a three dimensional make-up. If scientists find evidence of the super particles which they predict will come from other dimensions. who knows, you might be nudged in the right direction.

Actually the trend seems to continue to be moving away from the concept of discrete particles... things seem to be much more relative and interdependent than that. But I'm definitely of the opinion that our existence involves quite a bit more than our apparent 4 dimensional existence. I just don't think that any religions hold the absolute universal truth about the nature of reality. In fact, I think most are simply a reflection of the human condition.

O.k., thus the invention 'i'. But is any number really real? Only positive integers are tangible.

No, numbers are not 'real'. Math is a formal symbolic language.

~Raithere