Thread: Scientific Facts of the Bible...

Originally posted by kimpossible
We've even offered our first admin position, if she'll accept.

And I have.

So I guess that means I need to install forum software tonight. . .

[edit] Comcast and PacBell are resolving it now! Woohoo!

Pinging faithbusters.com [67.15.72.42] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 67.15.72.42: bytes=32 time=70ms TTL=46
Reply from 67.15.72.42: bytes=32 time=69ms TTL=46

I said the same thing Brady did: God hasn't revealed himself yet. Leastwise, no reliable observation of God has been made.

(There have been recorded and documented eye witness accounts of the manifestation of God in this world, witnessed by thousands, and recorded for all of history to see. Weather or not He has revealed Himself to you is matter receptiveness.)

Until a reliable observation is made, we have no reason to go back and erase all of our previous hard work and investigations into the workings of the universe just to write them all back again in a way that allows a God in the system.

(How it is that scientist can look deep within an organism to find the smallest unknown life forums, but will not look deep within them and find God. There would be nothing to investigate without God, because nothing would exist without Him, including, but not limited to you.)

When we have evidence of a God being in the system, we'll change that.

(The mathematical perfection of the Super-verse could not coalesce into the magnificent creation that is now here for all to see, without God.)

But as time progresses, the chances of a God revealing itself become ever smaller.

(God is not governed by time so that is a nullified statement of conjecture unworthy of process.)

So miniscule it's not worth noting. That doesn't disprove God, since God is impossible to disprove. A sentient (assumable, anyways) being who is omnipotent could evade our observations for an infinite amount of time.

(God has no desire to evade man, on the contrary He is calling-out to man ‘Adom where art thou’ but with no response, because man tries to response in the natural to a spiritual summons.)

But if that's the case, there's no point in acknowledging said God. He isn't bugging us, we're not bugging him, etc.

(That is not the case, God can not ‘bug us’ but we do bug Him because of our disobedience.)

The Rev.[/quote]

Originally posted by Awaken4e1
(How it is that scientist can look deep within an organism to find the smallest unknown life forums, but will not look deep within them and find God.

Simple - they look deep within themselves and discover god doesn't exist.

Originally posted by kimpossible


Simple - they look deep within themselves and discover god doesn't exist.

That is an untrue statement, because it is proven that when man looks inward he finds God every time...

These are results only because 'carnal men' know not how to look within the soul, lacking the spirit to see. Not to say they can learn if they are willing...

'Blessed is he who has not seen and believes'

P.S. If my view is wrong we lose nothing, but if I am right you lose...

'Everything God has for you"

Someone had to first tell you about God, Awaken.

And I bet that was someone who wanted to control you for your own protection.

Originally posted by Ex Nine
Someone had to first tell you about God, Awaken.

And I bet that was someone who wanted to control you for your own protection.

No, not true God Himself revealed Himself to me when I was alone on the road...with no one else around. Just as He did Moses'

Originally posted by Awaken4e1
No, not true God Himself revealed Himself to me when I was alone on the road...with no one else around. Just as He did Moses'

Right, but you had already learned about God before that.

Originally posted by Ex Nine


Right, but you had already learned about God before that.

No!

Originally posted by Awaken4e1
No!

No?

What about this thing called the Bible? You never heard of it before your road revelation?

Originally posted by Awaken4e1
P.S. If my view is wrong we lose nothing, but if I am right you lose...

That's called Pascal's wager. The typical reply is "God doesn't let gamblers into heaven."

Originally posted by bradybaker
That's called Pascal's wager. The typical reply is \"God doesn't let gamblers into heaven.\"

Hahaha! Wow, I haven't heard that one since my geometry days.

[quote][quote][quote][quote][quote]

But if that's the case, there's no point in acknowledging said God. He isn't bugging us, we're not bugging him, etc.

(That is not the case, God can not ‘bug us’ but we do bug Him because of our disobedience.)

Well, if we're bugging him, he can stop us. He IS supposed to be omnipotent, remember? And God would be perfectly capable of bugging us. That falls under the "omnipotent" listing. Beyond that, I was using the term "bug" as a reference to direct intervention. In that case, we don't have the power to directly intervene with God--it would be akin to trying to stop a semi on the freeway by jumping in front of the wheels. God's supposedly omnipotent, we aren't. But God does have the power to intervene with us, directly and in an observable and proveable manner if he so wishes. But God doesn't, leading science to assume that one of a few conditions are true:

1- God doesn't exist.
2- God does exist, but doesn't give a damn about us here. He has the ability to affect us, but he doesn't use it for some reason.
3- God isn't omnipotent. This somewhat leads back into the 1st, since an omnipotent God can be overthrown, meaning God isn't er...Godly. Sort of defeats the definition of the word.
4- God has some sort of odd personal disorder that makes him want to pull cruel and inhuman tricks on mankind. Y'know, like give man logic, then damn the people (scientists) that try to use it.

Originally posted by Tsen

What I would really like to know is why so many people hold to the rhetoric which was posed by someone who had no foundational experience in spiritual matters as being the cornerstone of their belief when it comes to the religion of evolution i.e. ‘Isaac Newton’?

'God is like a Rubik’s Cube, He hides Himself in plain sight for all to see, but He is indiscernible by the natural mind, but only the spiritual mind can solve the puzzle, then those who refuse to comply with the rules of the solution lament that they don’t get it, so God must not be real.'

The Rev.

Shoot, I forgot where "Rubik's cube" is mentioned in the bible...

Originally posted by Awaken4e1
What I would really like to know is why so many people hold to the rhetoric which was posed by someone who had no foundational experience in spiritual matters as being the cornerstone of their belief when it comes to the religion of evolution i.e. ‘Isaac Newton’?

Evolution isn't a religion. Religion involves the supernatural by definition, and evolution is based on the NATURAL, not the SUPERNATURAL. Isaac Newton had nothing to do with evolution, by the way. He was more into physical science. Y'know...object in motion and all that.
Further, I could just as easily inquire why so many people hold to rhetoric passed down by religious people with no scientific background.

Originally posted by Awaken4e1

No, not true God Himself revealed Himself to me when I was alone on the road...with no one else around. Just as He did Moses'

God came to me (when I was in solitude) and confessed that he doesn't exist. I was completely sober and coherent at the time, free of medication and in perfect sanity.

Which statement is more true?

Originally posted by InTheMoment

God came to me (when I was in solitude) and confessed that he doesn't exist. I was completely sober and coherent at the time, free of medication and in perfect sanity.

Which statement is more true?

Wouldn't that anihilate his inexistance by making himself be known? To me, it depends on what kind of appearance was made. For both Awaken4e1's and yours, could that relevation be in the form of reflection of past or current events?

Originally posted by Genjyo

Wouldn't that anihilate his inexistance by making himself be known?

Exactly...which would be quite absurd (just like Awaken's post), therefore rendering both statements equal in the sense of being true.

Originally posted by Awaken4e1
What I would really like to know is why so many people hold to the rhetoric which was posed by someone who had no foundational experience in spiritual matters as being the cornerstone of their belief when it comes to the religion of evolution i.e. ‘Isaac Newton’?

Monsignor Gianfranco Basti, director of the Vatican project STOQ, or Science, Theology and Ontological Quest, reaffirmed John Paul's 1996 statement that evolution was "more than just a hypothesis."

"A hypothesis asks whether something is true or false," he said. "(Evolution) is more than a hypothesis because there is proof."

Excerpt from a Nov 04/05 Associated Press article.

Only one problem with the Rubiks Cube analogy: My best friend and I were on a silly national TV news morning show back in the 80's - we both simultaneously solved two cubes in less than 14 seconds - with our feet.

If he were hiding like a Rubik's Cube, there are dozens of precocious 10 year olds that would have easily found him by now, and science wouldn't be all that impressed about it.

Originally posted by kimpossible
we both simultaneously solved two cubes in less than 14 seconds - with our feet.

Wow, Maybe I should reconsider that 'some did evolve from Apes

If he were hiding like a Rubik's Cube, there are dozens of precocious 10 year olds that would have easily found him by now, and science wouldn't be all that impressed about it.[/b]

Dozens of 10 year olds have found God, and it is not at all impressive to science, which was expected, so no real news there.

P.S. how is it that some one of your 'stellar education,'... has to work with their hands, (O' I'm sorry,) ah! feet to get noticed?

Originally posted by The Rev+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(The Rev)</div>

Wow, Maybe I should reconsider that 'some did evolve from Apes[/b]

<!--QuoteBegin-I
Monsignor Gianfranco Basti, director of the Vatican project STOQ, or Science, Theology and Ontological Quest, reaffirmed John Paul's 1996 statement that evolution was \"more than just a hypothesis.\"

\"A hypothesis asks whether something is true or false,\" he said. \"(Evolution) is more than a hypothesis because there is proof.\"

Excerpt from a Nov 04/05 Associated Press article.

Originally posted by bradybaker

Consider the source...Monsignor Gianfranco Basti, director of the Vatican project STOQ

No, it is conjectured proof, based on one man's idea of how individual species came to be, which is not the truth, every animal produces after its own kind, and that is why an elephant can't produce a donkey. Nor can any other species cross breed into another species. Let's say an Ape into a Man...can't happen