Scientific Approach to the Jesus question

[Wilmet]

Wilmet,

How would that be possible if your choice is known before you make it? Clearly the choice has been made before you make it, it would no longer be yours to make.

But see my response to regulus as well.

As humans, we have a tendency to get stuck on "before" and "after" because we view the universe psychologically and chronologically. In the universe, all of our choices are part of eternity... our choices are, were and will always be our choices... the universe knows.

[Cris]

regulus,

So your saying it's someone elses choice, if so then who?

You still fail to explain this. Your repeating the same thing over and over.

That’s because I have no answer. To me the scenario (omniscience) is an impossibility. If it were to exist then it creates an insoluble paradox, but its existence is mutually exclusive with freewill, i.e. both cannot coexist.

[Wilmet]

Here is another example for you wilmet. Say God comes down from heaven again this time to tell you at exaclty 2:30 friday afternoon you will be on a plane and on your way to iraq as a member of the army and it will be your doing. You ask god if he is joking becuse you tell him you will never join the army. He says he is serious and it will happen. Well 2:30 came & went. You didnt join the army and you arent on a plane. God lied. And we know he cant lie or else he isnt god.

Hi ss,

Sorry, but I'm not getting the point of this post. I know it's late...

[Cris]

Wilmet,

As humans, we have a tendency to get stuck on "before" and "after" because we view the universe psychologically and chronologically.

Until you can show otherwise the universe does proceed chronologically and we actually live in a chronological frame of reference. It is not a matter being stuck.

In the universe, all of our choices are part of eternity... our choices are, were and will always be our choices...

Not if determinism is the natural order of things. Can you show it isn’t?

the universe knows.

What the heck does that mean and why is it relevant?

[Wilmet]

Wilmet,

Until you can show otherwise the universe does proceed chronologically and we actually live in a chronological frame of reference. It is not a matter being stuck.

Not if determinism is the natural order of things. Can you show it isn’t?

What the heck does that mean and why is it relevant?

Hi Cris,

Yes, our frame of reference is chronological. I'll leave it at that for the night. Have a good one.

[Woody]

woody,

No apparently you haven’t. Try reading what I said.

Again I don’t care what fantasies they call upon I simply have nothing to indicate their actions would have any benefit.

ok Chris, I apologize for some pretty harsh words.

Here's the BL with you -- you demand God on your own terms: a scientific proof or nothing else. It won't happen. Faith in God is not based on science, but neither is logic. That's right -- logic is not based on science. Think about it. Our judicial system is a classical example. It was logically enabled based on human values. The same is true for all the "social sciences." Without humans they wouldn't be here. They came from something higher than the random forces of nature -- they have rules and the rules come from authority.

It's a real stretch for anyone to say science started it all. Cosmology shows otherwise. The rules from science came as a result rather than a cause. You even edited my post on that subject.

It would be kind of ridiculous to explain the fine arts with science. If all you can accept is science for anything in life that's of value you're living in a smaller universe that excludes some of the best things available, which surely you are enjoying.

[pavlosmarcos]

woody it seems to me that you sir, are a complete f**king imbecile.
cris: has constantly told you, that god to him is a non-entity/a fantasy, yet you continue to state, that he wants god on this terms or that, etc etc, for f**k sake man get you head sorted, it's not rocket science.

The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn. -- Alvin Toffler

[Woody]

woody it seems to me that you sir, are a complete f**king imbecile.
cris: has constantly told you, that god to him is a non-entity/a fantasy, yet you continue to state, that he wants god on this terms or that, etc etc, for f**k sake man get you head sorted, it's not rocket science.

The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn. -- Alvin Toffler

I'm learning to master the guitar at age 53, what are you accomplishing?


Whatever your paradigm is, it's dead on arrival.

You are misapplying Alvin Toffler's statement which has to do with technoloy-- when you learn something you should build upon it instead of going back to ground zero. That's how you get ahead. That's what doctors and lawyers do. The "unlearn and relearn model is for IT majors". Look who makes a steady, reliable, high income. Do you suppose medical and legal services will be contracted to India and China?

you continue to state, that he wants god on this terms or that,

This is the absolute truth. He wants a scientific experiment that proves the existence of god. Without it, he holds to his current system of belief, which excludes a huge part of reality that would not even be called supernatural. Science is not all of natural reality. Are you having trouble with this concept?

[Regulus]

Hi Cris,

regulus,

That’s because I have no answer. To me the scenario (omniscience) is an impossibility. If it were to exist then it creates an insoluble paradox, but its existence is mutually exclusive with freewill, i.e. both cannot coexist.

I suffice that it can on the premise that we just don't understand it, that we ourselves with human minds that think in a linear path, that think in such mannerisms as shape and size will never be able to understand such a thing.

There are some things that we can never understand, things that can be, but we can't put into reason with our minds.

And your right it's not a prediction, it's a perfect future, flawed example. I apologize.

But... again, your thinking in terms of "I have no answer, therefor it's false".

You won't have an answer for everything. And your saying becuz it contradicts itself it cannot exist, I can use the same example if it didn't exist. The Universe is like a mechanism, if an intelligent cause had nothing to do with it's existance is a paradox, becuz of the escewity that would exist. As such, even a cyclicality would need an intelligent cause for it to keep itself cyclical for an infinity, as that intelligence would be it's cause for an infinity.

It's a contradictable statement either way. A mechanism without a creator, and a creator that can't create itself. Once again another dead end.

In the end neither of us have answers.

Hello Wilmet.

Yes, our frame of reference is chronological. I'll leave it at that for the night. Have a good one.

I wouldn't suppose we are stuck in a frame of reference, but rather a frame of chronological occurances that cannot be measured, like a tape playing all scenes of a movie at once. Which could... however explain the Omnipotence's ability to know all. That there truely is no measurement, but that all times have already happend, and chronology is just a tape playing all scenes at once and has for an infinity.

[ggazoo]

If he existed and was all-powerful and all-loving then he wouldn't allow ANY suffering. Simple as that.

Like most atheists, you're misunderstanding God. Athesist's use the following for their arguments:

• God is all-powerful, loving, and perfect.

• A perfect, loving God would create a universe that was perfect (e.g., no evil and suffering).

• The universe is not perfect but contains evil and suffering.

Therefore, God does not exist.

The Bible does state that God is "all powerful." The Bible also states that God is loving. The Bible also indicates that God is perfect. The next statement indicates that a perfect, loving God must create a universe that is perfect. This is the statement that is false and invalidates the argument. Nowhere does the Bible state that the universe was created to be perfect. God Himself called it "good" and "very good," but never "perfect." In fact, God Himself stated that part of the original creation was "not good." The Bible states that the current universe is not perfect, but was designed to be temporary and will be replaced with a perfect universe that will be permanent. Science also tells us that the universe was designed to be temporary.

So why would God create an imperfect, temporary universe only to replace it later with a perfect one? Why wouldn't God have created a perfect universe in the first place? Good question, but shows a lack of understanding of the biblical reason of why God created the universe. God created humans in order to have a personal relationship with them. God created the universe for the express purpose of allowing free will spiritual beings the opportunity to have fellowship with Him (and likewise, reject Him).

The Bible says that God allows temporary, bounded evil in order to allow free will beings to have the ability to love and to make choices. There's a lot of evil in the world. In fact, I think that there is too much evil in the world to be explained by naturalistic processes. The fact is that there is too much evil in the world to be explained by chaos theory or the laws of physics. Evolution provides no answers to explain the vast amount of evil done by mankind. None of the other creatures on our planet have the capacity for evil that mankind does. No other mammals kill arbitrarily. The Bible says that the presence of evil is due to the spiritual component of our nature - something that animals do not possess. God endowed His spiritual creatures with free will to love God or to oppose Him. Some people blame the evil on "society." However, society is composed of individuals who make individual choices. Most of the evil is committed by people who oppose the will of society. In contrast, there are many examples of societies in the animal kingdom, especially among the primates. None of these societies have the capacity for evil that we do. We are different from all other animals on our planet - a fact that has no scientific or evolutionary explanation.

God did not design this universe to be perfect, but as a temporary creation where free will beings make choices about where they want to spend eternity (in the new creation, which will be perfect).

[Oli]

Ephesians 1:11
In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will

he fact is that there is too much evil in the world to be explained by chaos theory or the laws of physics

Where did you get the idea that chaos theory or physics claim to explain evil?

No other mammals kill arbitrarily.

Cats?

but as a temporary creation where free will beings make choices

If it's predestined we don't have free will and all the suffering is for his amusement/ diversion.

Regulus:

As such, even a cyclicality would need an intelligent cause for it to keep itself cyclical for an infinity, as that intelligence would be it's cause for an infinity.

Why would infinity need an intelligence - it could just BE.

I wouldn't suppose we are stuck in a frame of reference, but rather a frame of chronological occurances that cannot be measured, like a tape playing all scenes of a movie at once. Which could... however explain the Omnipotence's ability to know all.

And if all scenes are played at once then what we think of as the future has already been laid onto film and we have no free will...

[KennyJC]

Like most atheists, you're misunderstanding God.

What makes you think you know more about 'God' than what atheists do? What gives you the right to be so arrogant as to state God's motives and talk about the Bible as if it knows the will of 'God'?

This is why you will always look like an idiot ggazoo.

[ggazoo]

What makes you think you know more about 'God' than what atheists do? What gives you the right to be so arrogant as to state God's motives and talk about the Bible as if it knows the will of 'God'?

This is why you will always look like an idiot ggazoo.

This coming from an atheist. Someone who has done nothing on these forums but mock theists and laugh at their belifes.

No futher comment.

[ggazoo]

Cats?

Cats are known hunters.

[Crunchy Cat]

Cats are known hunters.

They are also non-human mammals that kill arbitrarily. Dogs do it too. My friends dog turned a skunk into a chew toy. Ever seen guts squirt out a skunk's ass? Not pretty.

[KennyJC]

This coming from an atheist. Someone who has done nothing on these forums but mock theists and laugh at their belifes.

No futher comment.

I thought you would avoid that.

You are probably wise (for a change) not to answer that as there is no way around it that wouldn't make you look like an idiot.

[Cris]

Whoody,

Here's the BL with you -- you demand God on your own terms: a scientific proof or nothing else.

Not quite. For me to believe your claims I need to see something that can show that your concept of a god is anything other than imaginary. How that is accomplished is up to you. Using the scientific method would certainly be a convincing approach. But the result should be unambiguous, demonstrable, and independent of human imagination. The later part is where you will have overwhelming and probably insurmountable difficulty.

Faith in God is not based on science, but neither is logic.

I have no interest in faith; I am only interested in demonstrable truth.

That's right -- logic is not based on science.

That is correct, science is based on logic.

Think about it. Our judicial system is a classical example. It was logically enabled based on human values.

Well almost, legal systems are based on rationally derived human needs for protection.

The same is true for all the "social sciences." Without humans they wouldn't be here.

”All social sciences” is a rather wide an encompassing term that makes your point somewhat ambiguous.

They came from something higher than the random forces of nature -- they have rules and the rules come from authority.

That’s just a simple non-sequitur. Law is based on reasoned needs for a given community. The law then becomes the authority. But be clear that it is man that creates this authority for himself and not the other way around.

It's a real stretch for anyone to say science started it all.

I don’ think anyone would say that. Science simply means knowledge.

Cosmology shows otherwise. The rules from science came as a result rather than a cause.

Not really sure what point you are trying for here. Science represents a set of processes based on logic and experimentation that can result in new unique knowledge. The rules are determined by what is known as the scientific method, something developed by man.

You even edited my post on that subject.

Don’t remember editing any of your posts.

It would be kind of ridiculous to explain the fine arts with science.

But then fine art is not offering new knowledge only emotional experiences.

If all you can accept is science for anything in life that's of value you're living in a smaller universe that excludes some of the best things available, which surely you are enjoying.

Your conclusion is invalid since it is based on too many false assumptions and misconceptions.

The only issue here is whether a god exists or not and the method used to determine that. Subjective art appreciation doesn’t come close to a reliable method.

[ggazoo]

You misunderstand your own holy texts? The bible does say God is all-powerful
Gen. 17:1
When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am Almighty God; walk before Me and be blameless".

That's what I said...

I thought you would avoid that.

You are probably wise (for a change) not to answer that as there is no way around it that wouldn't make you look like an idiot.

I didn't answer that because it didn't dignify a response. Now, when I ignore your rebuttal to this, you can convince yourself that you've "won".

End flame war.

[spiritual_spy]

Damn it i read to fast........my mistake.

[Cris]

Regulus,

But... again, your thinking in terms of "I have no answer, therefor it's false".

No I didn’t come close to saying anything like that. I merely pointed out the paradox that would result in a scenario of which we have no precedent or any way to indicate would be possible. Not having an answer to a probable paradox seems quite acceptable and doesn’t imply anything further.

You won't have an answer for everything.

I won’t or I don’t? Not sure what you mean here.

And your saying becuz it contradicts itself it cannot exist, I can use the same example if it didn't exist.

Umm well if something does contradict itself then yes it cannot exist.

The Universe is like a mechanism, if an intelligent cause had nothing to do with it's existance is a paradox, becuz of the escewity that would exist.

That is a non-sequitur, if the universe has existed for an infinite past then there would be no cause.

As such, even a cyclicality would need an intelligent cause for it to keep itself cyclical for an infinity,

Why? If it is cyclical then that means no intervention is required.

as that intelligence would be it's cause for an infinity.

Not if it has always existed. Why assume something infinite needs to be caused?

It's a contradictable statement either way.

I don’t see any contradictions with an infinite universe.

A mechanism without a creator, and a creator that can't create itself. Once again another dead end.

Not if the “mechanism” doesn’t need a cause.

In the end neither of us have answers.

There are plenty of answers, some seem more probable and credible than others, what we don’t have is proof for any.