The fallacy here is that Time just is - it carries on at its relentless rate for each relative frame of reference. It does not create, destroy, exhibit any kind of humanistic motivation or other characteristic - it just is. God as an uncaused cause nevertheless was supposedly caused as an intelligent, proactive entity, or at least the one that is worshipped in churches, synagogues and mosques is. The question is, how did God come into being possessing characteristics that it took the Universe billions of years to evolve?VitalOne said:
Scientific Reasons for God
- Thread starter ghost7584
- Start date
The whole concept of "time" arises from our memory. If we had no memory of anything, then things would just be happening, no "time" involved. That is actually how they happen. The perception that things will happen, are happening, and happened are just perceptions. Similar to what Quantum Physics says, when we aren't observing anything everything is infinitely happening. Time never really existed, so when you die, it will continue to not existGodless said:Ah!! A bit different, however I still fail to see the "logic". We perceive time, correct, but also correct, (existence exists wether we are aware of it or not". Thus existence exists, wether I exist or not. However how would such a perception explain physical growth, of say, my own body?. Thus time exists, wether we are aware of it or not. Physical time exists wether a perception such as human consciousness were an existence or not. Thus before I was an existence with a consciousness to perceive time, time existed between that time I was unaware of it, till I became aware of it. Also time will continue to exists, when I perish, because even though I will no longer "exist" time will continue to exists. Wether the human race commits genocide or not, time will exis.
Early morning I hope that made sense
Godless.
Actually, though time doesn't carry any humanistic motivation, it can be characterized as a creator, maintainer, and destroyer. Without time nothing is ever created, maintained, nor destroyed. Time is the causer of everything, without time there is no change.Silas said:
This depends on which religion you look into. If you are thinking of God as something with personal attributes, as in some type of God in the sky I don't think you're thinking of God in the right frame of mind. If God is a causeless cause, it has to just be, just as time just is. Perhaps God has no personal attributes and these were just labeled by humans, characterized as such.
Well perhaps, I'll concede to this statement; though it makes no sense to me. However I read the above and couldn't help thinking of the movie "Fity First Dates". Drew B. and Addam (*forgot last name, memory lapse* LOL..*) anyhow she only remembered the day of her accident, and there was also in that movie a character. that forgot everything within 2min. Hi my name is bob, two minutes latter, Hi my name is bob, and so forth. So perception does play a big part to perceiving time. However even before humans were walking the earth, time elapsing, moving, existing, only when human capacity to perceive did we know the compcept of time.
Sorry for rambling but this just trips me out!. LOL..
Godless.
But that God is nothing more than a personification of the Universe. I believe in the Universe, I just don't believe in a personal, anthropomorphic Creator God. If you're claiming that this non-persona God is additional to the existing Universe, I would need to see some kind of evidence - even as much "evidence" as there exists for the Biblical God. And I wonder why go to all the bother in believing in such a God?VitalOne said:
VitalOne said:The whole concept of "time" arises from our memory. If we had no memory of anything, then things would just be happening, no "time" involved. That is actually how they happen. The perception that things will happen, are happening, and happened are just perceptions. Similar to what Quantum Physics says, when we aren't observing anything everything is infinitely happening. Time never really existed, so when you die, it will continue to not exist
I agree with you. In another thread I gave a mathematical proof of the non existance of time and paste it below. WARNING BORING READING BELOW
About time's existance: Time is not invisible material that flows, dragging the events that happen with it. If the passage of time were universally "paused" and them resumed, no one would know. It would be like you were one of the characters in a movie who had just knocked over a glass of water, half of which had spilled out, when time "paused" - When the movies resumes, it shows the other half spills out. etc. just as if the movie never paused.
The best way to think of time is that it is a convenient parameter the can link many different events together. For example, (considering only one half cycle of a pendullum's swing), the pendulum of a grandfather clock and the advance of the clocks hands. If the position of the hands is described by a function of time, h = H(t), and the position of the pendulum by the function p = P(t) where "t" is time, h is hand positions, and p is pendulum paosition, one can solve (invert) these equations to get: t = T1(h) that is time expressed as a function of hand position which I have called T1 to distinguish it from different function T2. The inversion of the equation p = P(t) yields: t = T2(p).
Now we can eliminate t from these two equations. I.e. T1(h) = T2(p). That is with this equation we have a direct relations (NO TIME VARIABLE) between p and h. It would be possible to establish direct relationship equations between any two observable events you like, WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE TO TIME; however, it would be an extremely inconvent way to describe the universe because every equation would be unique and complex, but this illustates that "time" is not necessary to a complete description of the universe, even one with mathematical percision. Thus time is not material, or even necessary and if it "paused" we would not know. Time is only a very convenient concept for understanding how events are related. Without linking all observable events to this parameter we call time, the equations of physics would be much to complex to actually use for almost everything we can describe via time.
We naturaly tend to think of time a some unseen "flow" to which all events are tied, but this is only a convenience. Time really does not exist either as a material or non matreril flow. Events cause the change in other events, not passage of time. The clock's hands advance because the pendulum swings etc.
VitalOne said:
Actually time is a property of the Universe. Time began when the universe began.
Man I'm slow. It just occurred to me that the nonsense of the thread is exposed in the title.
Science? I'm down, but it is a little boring.
Reason? Hellz yeah. It's even interesting.
God? Uh... (singing) One of these things is not like the other....
I suppose that's slightly unfair, as it is reasoning that lead to god's invention. Distinctly flawed reasoning (as has been demonstrated clearly ad-infinitum), but reasoning none-the-less.
You are the weakest link!
Goodbye.
Science? I'm down, but it is a little boring.
Reason? Hellz yeah. It's even interesting.
God? Uh... (singing) One of these things is not like the other....
I suppose that's slightly unfair, as it is reasoning that lead to god's invention. Distinctly flawed reasoning (as has been demonstrated clearly ad-infinitum), but reasoning none-the-less.
You are the weakest link!
Goodbye.
Last edited:
I wonder what is the probability for life to appear in this universe as opposed to on earth. Even because oxigen atoms are not incredibly abundant themselves (assuming life like ours).......
Silas: But that God is nothing more than a personification of the Universe. I believe in the Universe, I just don't believe in a personal, anthropomorphic Creator God. If you're claiming that this non-persona God is additional to the existing Universe, I would need to see some kind of evidence - even as much "evidence" as there exists for the Biblical God. And I wonder why go to all the bother in believing in such a God?
*************
M*W: I like your description of who/what you think God to be. The Universe did, in fact, create everything including humanity, and we are still in the process of our creation.
*************
M*W: I like your description of who/what you think God to be. The Universe did, in fact, create everything including humanity, and we are still in the process of our creation.
wesmorris
So do you expect that others should share in your belief?
Jesus plainly said that many will go to destruction and few will find the way that leads to eternal life in heaven. It is like that in every generation.
Matthew 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide [is] the gate, and broad [is] the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Matthew 7:14 Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
The title of this post is "scientific reasons for God".
I am in this discussion to present the reasons, and make them available to people. In the hope, that some might be saved from hell by it. I expect opposition from most. I am presenting this discussion to try to lead the few, to salvation.
If you want to know what is the way that leads to life in heaven:
It is in the King James version New Testament. Ask God to help you understand it right before you read it. You can listen to it on your computer at this website:
http://www.audio-bible.com/bible/bible.html
So do you expect that others should share in your belief?
Jesus plainly said that many will go to destruction and few will find the way that leads to eternal life in heaven. It is like that in every generation.
Matthew 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide [is] the gate, and broad [is] the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Matthew 7:14 Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
The title of this post is "scientific reasons for God".
I am in this discussion to present the reasons, and make them available to people. In the hope, that some might be saved from hell by it. I expect opposition from most. I am presenting this discussion to try to lead the few, to salvation.
If you want to know what is the way that leads to life in heaven:
It is in the King James version New Testament. Ask God to help you understand it right before you read it. You can listen to it on your computer at this website:
http://www.audio-bible.com/bible/bible.html
Please define what you mean by "god".itopal said:
If you merely mean an advanced lifeform then this is not "God".
You could certainly assign the label of "god" to any life-form that has superior abilities (technologically, intellectually, physically etc) if you so wish, but then this is not "God" as in the Christian understanding of the word / label - but merely a superior being in the same way as we are "superior" to an amoeba.
Are we an amoeba's "god"?
I think you just need to define what you mean by the label of "god".
That Audio Bible - is that the Larry King one from The Simpsons?
Joking aside...
As you say, ghost, this thread is the Scientific Reasons for God. Nothing irrefutable has been held up as scientific proof of God. In the meantime science frequently disproves what is stated in that Bible you apparently worship. If I believed in God, which I don't, I would never believe that salvation would come from persistent blind denial of the truths about the Universe He created which we have independently discovered.
Hi, I'm Larry King. In the Beginning, God made the Heaven and the Earth...
...
...begat.....begat....begat....begat...
...
...lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.
Well, that's it. Old Fred [?] is standing by, we'll get some coffee,
we'll get some matzo-ball soup. I love the San Antonio Spurs,
by the way, if you're betting on the NBA this year, I think they'll
win it all. So I guess there's nothing more to say but... [closing music]
...
...begat.....begat....begat....begat...
...
...lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.
Well, that's it. Old Fred [?] is standing by, we'll get some coffee,
we'll get some matzo-ball soup. I love the San Antonio Spurs,
by the way, if you're betting on the NBA this year, I think they'll
win it all. So I guess there's nothing more to say but... [closing music]
Joking aside...
A hint here that once again ghost is actually yanking our chains. There must be tons of written Bible sources all over the Internet, my personal recommendation is for the University of Biola Unbound Bible project at http://unbound.biola.edu. This allows concordant readings from different translations (including the KJV). But to recommend a spoken word Bible from an Internet source with all the inconvenience that implies almost beggars belief!ghost7584 said:
As you say, ghost, this thread is the Scientific Reasons for God. Nothing irrefutable has been held up as scientific proof of God. In the meantime science frequently disproves what is stated in that Bible you apparently worship. If I believed in God, which I don't, I would never believe that salvation would come from persistent blind denial of the truths about the Universe He created which we have independently discovered.
Last edited:
Ohhh..... OMG! Is this the voice of God!?!?!?!?ghost7584 said:
Sorry, I couldn't resist....
medicine woman
M*W: Newton was a member of the Knights Templar. He was familiar with the esoteric beliefs of Christ such as Jesus's marriage to Mary Magdalen. He was a member of the elite society. He really knew who Jesus was and what his mission was.
Newton was never a member of the knights templar. The knights templar was a roman catholic organization. Newton was a protestant that believed that the pope is an antichrist. Newton could never have been a member of any roman catholic organization like the knights templar.
Jesus was never married to Mary Magdalene, and Newton was a bible scholar that never would have believed a lie like that.
M*W: Newton was a member of the Knights Templar. He was familiar with the esoteric beliefs of Christ such as Jesus's marriage to Mary Magdalen. He was a member of the elite society. He really knew who Jesus was and what his mission was.
Newton was never a member of the knights templar. The knights templar was a roman catholic organization. Newton was a protestant that believed that the pope is an antichrist. Newton could never have been a member of any roman catholic organization like the knights templar.
Jesus was never married to Mary Magdalene, and Newton was a bible scholar that never would have believed a lie like that.
A hint here that once again ghost is actually yanking our chains. There must be tons of written Bible sources all over the Internet, my personal recommendation is for the
Silas
University of Biola Unbound Bible project at http://unbound.biola.edu. This allows concordant readings from different translations (including the KJV). But to recommend a spoken word Bible from an Internet source with all the inconvenience that implies almost beggars belief!
The real unaltered scriptures, recopied word for word and handed down, is the byzantine or textus receptus for the New Testament, and the massoretic text of the Jews for the Old Testament. The King James version, the Tyndale bible and Luther's german bible are translations of these.
The modern versions use a corrupted Alexandrian text mixed in with it a about 5% of the words were deliberately changed in Alexandria Egypt by Egyptian philosophers called gnostics.
Partial List of Corrupt New Versions
AMP Amplified Version ASV American Standard Version CEV Contemporary English Version KJ21 21st Century King James Version NAB New American Bible (RC) NASB New American Standard Bible NCV New Century Version NIV New International Version NIVI New International Version Inclusive NKJV New King James Version NLT New Living Translation (The Book) NRSV New Revised Standard Version RSV Revised Standard Version RV Revised Version TEV Today's English Version (Good News For Modern Man)
The manuscripts from which the textus receptus was taken are the majority of the Greek manuscripts which agree with each other and have been accepted by Bible believing Christians down through the centuries. The King James was translated from these manuscripts. There are 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts that contain all or part of the New Testament. These manuscripts agree together 95% of the time. The other 5% accounts for the differences between the King James and the modern versions. The textus receptus, King James, does not include the vaticanus and sinaiticus manuscripts from Alexandrian Egypt; these are the corrupted manuscripts in question. Manuscripts from which the modern versions are translated includes the textus receptus plus the vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts. The modern versions had to use the textus receptus since it contains the majority of the surviving Greek manuscripts. The problem is that when the textus receptus disagreed with the vaticanus or sainaiticus, they preferred these corrupted manuscripts over the textus receptus. That accounts for the 5% corruption in the modern versions. Where the textus receptus and the vaticanus and sinaiticus do not agree, it is because Marcion, 120 - 160 AD or Origin 184 - 254 AD [or whoever] corrupted those two manuscripts. (The vaticanus and sinaiticus disagree with each other over 3000 times in the gospels alone.)
The vast majority of the Greek manuscripts agree together. They have been passed down through the centuries by true Bible believing Christians. In 1516 Erasmus compiled and printed the Greek (textus receptus) the received text, from these manuscripts. This is the text that the protestants of the reformation knew to be the Word of God, from which the King James Bible was translated.
John Burgon, who spent years studying the texts wrote:
Sinaiticus is extremely unreliable. On many occasions, 10, 20, 30, 40, words are dropped through very carelessness. Letters, words or whole sentences are frequently written twice over or begun and immediately cancelled. A whole clause omitted, because it happens to end in the words of the clause preceeding happens 115 times in the New Testament.
The above is excerpts from the book:
Lets Weigh the Evidence: Which Bible is the Real Word of God? By Barry Burton. Find it here:
http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/0184.asp
The real unaltered Bible, translated into middle English is the King James version.
The modern versions are fake bibles with the words changed; 5% error.
Roman catholic bibles all have the corrupted Alexandrian text mixed in. The catholic church is behind the publishing of all of these fake bibles. They are trying to push the protestant bible, the kjv, out of the way and replace it with their corrupted Alexandrian text bibles.
The real inspired Word of God, unaltered, is the King James version Bible.
In the King James version New Testament you will find the way that leads to heaven and an eternal life of happiness.
Silas
University of Biola Unbound Bible project at http://unbound.biola.edu. This allows concordant readings from different translations (including the KJV). But to recommend a spoken word Bible from an Internet source with all the inconvenience that implies almost beggars belief!
The real unaltered scriptures, recopied word for word and handed down, is the byzantine or textus receptus for the New Testament, and the massoretic text of the Jews for the Old Testament. The King James version, the Tyndale bible and Luther's german bible are translations of these.
The modern versions use a corrupted Alexandrian text mixed in with it a about 5% of the words were deliberately changed in Alexandria Egypt by Egyptian philosophers called gnostics.
Partial List of Corrupt New Versions
AMP Amplified Version ASV American Standard Version CEV Contemporary English Version KJ21 21st Century King James Version NAB New American Bible (RC) NASB New American Standard Bible NCV New Century Version NIV New International Version NIVI New International Version Inclusive NKJV New King James Version NLT New Living Translation (The Book) NRSV New Revised Standard Version RSV Revised Standard Version RV Revised Version TEV Today's English Version (Good News For Modern Man)
The manuscripts from which the textus receptus was taken are the majority of the Greek manuscripts which agree with each other and have been accepted by Bible believing Christians down through the centuries. The King James was translated from these manuscripts. There are 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts that contain all or part of the New Testament. These manuscripts agree together 95% of the time. The other 5% accounts for the differences between the King James and the modern versions. The textus receptus, King James, does not include the vaticanus and sinaiticus manuscripts from Alexandrian Egypt; these are the corrupted manuscripts in question. Manuscripts from which the modern versions are translated includes the textus receptus plus the vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts. The modern versions had to use the textus receptus since it contains the majority of the surviving Greek manuscripts. The problem is that when the textus receptus disagreed with the vaticanus or sainaiticus, they preferred these corrupted manuscripts over the textus receptus. That accounts for the 5% corruption in the modern versions. Where the textus receptus and the vaticanus and sinaiticus do not agree, it is because Marcion, 120 - 160 AD or Origin 184 - 254 AD [or whoever] corrupted those two manuscripts. (The vaticanus and sinaiticus disagree with each other over 3000 times in the gospels alone.)
The vast majority of the Greek manuscripts agree together. They have been passed down through the centuries by true Bible believing Christians. In 1516 Erasmus compiled and printed the Greek (textus receptus) the received text, from these manuscripts. This is the text that the protestants of the reformation knew to be the Word of God, from which the King James Bible was translated.
John Burgon, who spent years studying the texts wrote:
Sinaiticus is extremely unreliable. On many occasions, 10, 20, 30, 40, words are dropped through very carelessness. Letters, words or whole sentences are frequently written twice over or begun and immediately cancelled. A whole clause omitted, because it happens to end in the words of the clause preceeding happens 115 times in the New Testament.
The above is excerpts from the book:
Lets Weigh the Evidence: Which Bible is the Real Word of God? By Barry Burton. Find it here:
http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/0184.asp
The real unaltered Bible, translated into middle English is the King James version.
The modern versions are fake bibles with the words changed; 5% error.
Roman catholic bibles all have the corrupted Alexandrian text mixed in. The catholic church is behind the publishing of all of these fake bibles. They are trying to push the protestant bible, the kjv, out of the way and replace it with their corrupted Alexandrian text bibles.
The real inspired Word of God, unaltered, is the King James version Bible.
In the King James version New Testament you will find the way that leads to heaven and an eternal life of happiness.
ghost7584, you're repeating yourself, and I don't think you got my point, which is "why are you promoting a spoken word Bible?"
I was hoping you'd enter the discussion about the King James Bible on a thread on that subject I started here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=44806
I was hoping you'd enter the discussion about the King James Bible on a thread on that subject I started here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=44806
Silas said:
One of the principles of God, that can be plainly seen in His universe which He created is balance. Heat is balanced against cold, summer balanced against winter, breathing out balanced against breathing in and for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Eternal punishment is balanced against eternal reward. etc.
God is testing men to see if they will choose to do good or evil. This is to ensure that anyone allowed in heaven in the future will be proven faithful and there will not be anymore rebellion in heaven, like what happened with Satan and the fallen angels. God is allowing Satan and his devils to test men to see if they will choose good or evil. This is done by allowing Satan and his devils to have telepathic contact to the minds of men. The battle field for good and evil is in the thoughts of man. So, to keep things in balance; those that choose to get right with God and follow Him are going to have thoughts coming into their minds from God, leading them into the truth and into obeying God. So, Satan controls the thoughts of evil men, and the evil that they speak out of their mouths and what they write. And to keep things IN BALANCE, for a fair contest, God controls the thoughts of the righteous Christians that obey Him and the righteous words that God inspires to come out of their mouths and what they write. That is why you have a Word of God, the King James bible, which was inspired by God, to be written by men that were His servants, yielded to His will.
So, that is the answer to your question.
So what you're saying is that God is neither omniscient nor omnipotent.ghost7584 said:
In other words, Satan and his devils are doing God's will.
Apparently, God isn't good either. He's more interested in balance than being compassionate and loving.
Interesting God you believe in.
~Raithere