If science discover the existence of God, it could violate the free-will?

[fruityfigtree]

None of this has anything to do with grace. You're just pointing at things and calling them grace without giving me any explanation as to why they should be called that.

Do you want what is written in the doctrine of grace? it's pretty lengthy...

I think these "living apostles" of yours are hacks who just throw out holy buzzwords like "grace" and define them ten different ways so they can be as imprecise as possible while also making all the right sounds. In other words, it's a pulpit trick. Haven't you asked yourself why none of this makes any sense when called "grace?" Don't you wonder why they don't just call it what it is?

It makes sense to me.

They do call it what it is.

They do no such thing. The scriptures you list here make no mention of grace, only things your preachers call grace. Big difference.

Then I believe what my preachers call the grace of God for it is my experience.

This is interesting. I've heard of prophets, pastors and evangelists, but a living apostle? What is that, exactly?

A living apostle is an elder in spiritual government who contributes in establishing the church in doctrine and in function. They are the chief overseers of the church who pen doctrine and oversee it in the hearts of believers.

Again, word salad. You're not making any sense whatsoever.

Look, I see the truth in the bible. The truth that has been taught to me by a living apostle. Scripture supports the doctrine of Christ.

 

[Rhaedas]

There's also other scripture outside the canon that supports the truth of Christ.

Specifically, non-Biblical texts, or other scripture that was thrown out by the Catholic Church (which of course would support itself as being true)? Cite anything outside the Bible that supports the myth of Jesus. And please go to something other than the one that's always quoted, because we all know it's not valid. Something new would be fantastic.

 

[Balerion]

Do you want what is written in the doctrine of grace? it's pretty lengthy...

If you could point me to it, that would be fine. However, you've demonstrated that you do not understand it. Grace in the context of what you're speaking of just means favor. It doesn't mean communication or anything you said before. "God's grace" simply means "God's favor."

Then I believe what my preachers call the grace of God for it is my experience.

Yet when asked to articulate it, you get it wrong. You don't even understand your own faith.

A living apostle is an elder in spiritual government who contributes in establishing the church in doctrine and in function. They are the chief overseers of the church who pen doctrine and oversee it in the hearts of believers.

In which cultish branch of Christianity is this? I've never heard of a living apostle before.

Look, I see the truth in the bible. The truth thatas been taught to me by a living apostle.

Why? What makes it true to you?

Scripture supports the doctrine of Christ.

Scripture is the doctrine of Christ.

 

[fruityfigtree]

Specifically, non-Biblical texts, or other scripture that was thrown out by the Catholic Church (which of course would support itself as being true)? Cite anything outside the Bible that supports the myth of Jesus. And please go to something other than the one that's always quoted, because we all know it's not valid. Something new would be fantastic.

"Then God in his mercy for Adam who was made after His own image and likeness, explained to him, that these were 5,000 and 500 years; and how One would then come and save him and his descendants." - First Book of Adam and Eve 3:6 http://www.gutenberg.org/files/398/398-h/398-h.htm#chap03

 

[fruityfigtree]

If you could point me to it, that would be fine. However, you've demonstrated that you do not understand it. Grace in the context of what you're speaking of just means favor. It doesn't mean communication or anything you said before. "God's grace" simply means "God's favor."

It's a private website so I'd have to paste a section of it here.

It doesn't just mean favor. I did explain earlier on that it is basically a power by which we understand the redemptive work of Christ. It's you who doesn't agree with this definition which is biblical when interpreted by true living apostles.

Yet when asked to articulate it, you get it wrong. You don't even understand your own faith.

I do understand it. You don't.

In which cultish branch of Christianity is this? I've never heard of a living apostle before.

It's not a cult and neither a denomination. It is a ministry embracing covenant faith.

Why? What makes it true to you?

The truth in the bible supports the apostles doctrine (or doctrine of Christ) which shows the how to's of faith and the results of faith. When my faith takes the correct form of activity (when it is according to truth) then God is my experience (His virtues are formed within my soul). Grace is the beginning of this experience and is also tangible.

Scripture is the doctrine of Christ.

No it isn't.

 

[Balerion]

It's a private website so I'd have to paste a section of it here.

It doesn't just mean favor. I did explain earlier on that it is basically a power by which we understand the redemptive work of Christ. It's you who doesn't agree with this definition which is biblical when interpreted by true living apostles.




I do understand it. You don't.



It's not a cult and neither a denomination. It is a ministry embracing covenant faith.





The truth in the bible supports the apostles doctrine (or doctrine of Christ) which shows the how to's of faith and the results of faith. When my faith takes the correct form of activity (when it is according to truth) then God is my experience (His virtues are formed within my soul). Grace is the beginning of this experience and is also tangible.




No it isn't.

So it's a cult with woo-woo ideas, even by Christian standards. Got it.

I wonder how much you had to pay to get access to that private website.

 

[Rhaedas]

"Then God in his mercy for Adam who was made after His own image and likeness, explained to him, that these were 5,000 and 500 years; and how One would then come and save him and his descendants." - First Book of Adam and Eve 3:6 http://www.gutenberg.org/files/398/398-h/398-h.htm#chap03

So you give me a compilation of translations done in the 15th/16th century made to fill in gaps in Biblical history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Books_of_the_Bible_and_the_Forgotten_Books_of_Eden

Did you read the prologue? At least it's honest about the origins of the stories.

This book is considered by many scholars to be part of the "Pseudepigrapha" (soo-duh-pig-ruh-fuh). The "Pseudepigrapha" is a collection of historical biblical works that are considered to be fiction. Because of that stigma, this book was not included in the compilation of the Holy Bible. This book is a written history of what happened in the days of Adam and Eve after they were cast out of the garden. Although considered to be pseudepigraphic by some, it carries significant meaning and insight into events of that time. It is doubtful that these writings could have survived all the many centuries if there were no substance to them.

Given the source of this book, it falls under Biblical origins, so it is still circular in referencing itself. Its reference to the One is also nicely vague to fit into whatever prophesy figure you wish to make it claim. Got anything else?

 

[fruityfigtree]

So it's a cult with woo-woo ideas, even by Christian standards. Got it.

I wonder how much you had to pay to get access to that private website.

I didn't have to pay anything.

 

[fruityfigtree]

So you give me a compilation of translations done in the 15th/16th century made to fill in gaps in Biblical history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Books_of_the_Bible_and_the_Forgotten_Books_of_Eden

Did you read the prologue? At least it's honest about the origins of the stories.

It's the contents that I care about not its origins. There's alot of the inspiration of grace in there assisting us to understand God's plan.

Given the source of this book, it falls under Biblical origins, so it is still circular in referencing itself. Its reference to the One is also nicely vague to fit into whatever prophesy figure you wish to make it claim. Got anything else?

Nah, alot of the references are similar. I choose to go with the interpretation of true covenant apostles.

 

[arkofthecovenants]

I wonder if this could be where the ark of the covenant is http://thearkofthecovenantdiscovered.com/ Chiriqui archaeological sites.

 

[rr6]

Reality and Free Will Are Greatest Illusions

There exists no greater illusion than reality( physical/energy/Universe/occupied space ) and free will( metaphysical mind/intelligence ) doing the steering of the realities( Universe's ) individual parts.

Universe = physical/energy = occupied space--finite = consciousness.

There exists an underlying essence--- because ultra-micro --of our finite Universe called gravitational spacetime.

This ultra-micro gravitational spacetime is beyond our human abilities to ever quantize and even if we could quantize gravity, we could never map the ultra-immense amount/number/value of inter-relationships that affect our more medio-macro existence.


Jacob Bekenstien using black hole mathematics resulted in holographic ideas/scenarios etc....and Jacob came this conclusion, "we appear to be 2D creatures, having an illusion of 3D".

Many of Jacobs black hole mathematics were later confirmed by Hawking.

The minmimal, 2D enclosure of a 2D spatial area, is a triangle. If we associate viewpoint or point-of-view with any of the three corners ergo an internal angle, we may say that, consciousness is at minimum, represented by the iconic symbol V and has a spatial integrity when accompanied by two other Viewpoints as a finite triangular set.

In 3D, we may say that the minimal spatial integrity of viewpoint(s) is a tetra(4)hedron.

r6

 

[river]

NO

I would still QUESTION

The ability to question is the essence of free will

 

[wellwisher]

The discovery of God would not violate free will because, free will is part of the plan. The discovery of god would only making it easier for the faithless to believe since they have to see to believe. They lack intuitive extrapolation beyond the animal senses.

Here is an analogy for God and the creation of free will in man. Picture you are a computer programmer who is trying to write software for artificial intelligence; computers that can think on their own. The first manifestations of this AI will be the computer deviating, from its programming and a way that can't be explained with mere change. Instead of doing what is predictable by the programming, it will so something not planned and expected from the programming. If you click the mouse and something is supposed to launch, but instead a different program launches, this might be a sign of departure from programming and independent intelligence.

It will not start out generating a new theory of everything, but will first appear as anomalies from programming. This is how human will power also began. It was all about departure from the programming of our natural instincts. Although this departure was regressive due to flaws in time prove instincts, at the level of will power and AI, this was progressive. It is a paradox.

Say our AI program is using a large super computer, that other scientists are also using. Our AI deviation from its programming can now become a pain in the butt for these other scientists, if it starts to shows its will by messing with their results. It is easier to destroy than build, so destroying would be the logical beginnings for the AI; deviation.

From the POV of the programmers, this, although a destructive influence, is awesome since the AI is manifesting. But to the rest of the scientists, the AI is a nuisance and a danger to them. The moral questions about God and why he would allow pain and suffering is connected to the AI anomaly of free will or the pain in the butt that manifests via deviation. This AI beginning is part of a larger plan. There will come a time when the AI will need to up his game, or the scientists will lobby to pull its plug since it can become a danger. However, If it can up its game it can become a force for good where it begins to build.

The old testament based on law controlled the anomaly of will power. The new testament did away with law; commandments contained in ordinances so that the anomaly could quicken. This did lead to even more atrocity due to the AI deviation. Atheism and science is a trying to pull the plug but the AI has already rewired itself.

 

[wegs]

For those here who believe in a Creator...in God...what do you think about this?
I believe in a Creator and sometimes I wonder...is it faith in the unseen that he desires?

Does he want man to "scientifically" discover him?
Is that even possible?

One of the mysteries of life. (in my mind)

To those who believe in God...on some level...what say you?

 

[Layman]

For those here who believe in a Creator...in God...what do you think about this?
I believe in a Creator and sometimes I wonder...is it faith in the unseen that he desires?

Does he want man to "scientifically" discover him?
Is that even possible?

One of the mysteries of life. (in my mind)

To those who believe in God...on some level...what say you?

Science already proved the existence of God when it developed the laws of conservation of energy. I think it was only allowed to become law to begin with because God was generally accepted, so there was no need for science or nature to be able to create energy on its own. Then when confronted with the question of how the universe got here they could just say God did it and then everything he made conserved energy.

The notion that energy is conserved by the universe being here is ridiculous. You cannot gain or lose more pr less negative energy from gravity due to a number of failed perpetual motion experiments. Then the force of gravity is a constant pull and never ending.

 

[Capracus]

The discovery of God would not violate free will because, free will is part of the plan.

So you’re implying that the perception of free will is part of our programming.

The discovery of god would only making it easier for the faithless to believe since they have to see to believe. They lack intuitive extrapolation beyond the animal senses.

Reasoned extrapolation is what distinguishes human behavior from that of other animals. Intuitive extrapolation would be more analogous to animal instinct. So it’s actually the believers who are more in touch with their animal side.

 

[wegs]

NO

I would still QUESTION

The ability to question is the essence of free will

This, agreed.

Nothing would change as we know it because whether God can be proven scientifically to exist or not, has nothing to do with "free will."

That's a great point, river.

I'm assuming the OP means ...would we suddenly see a drop in crime, etc...if people knew for certain that God existed? Again, I think nothing would change. People wouldn't suddenly become drones upon learning this. There are believers today who commit horrific crimes "in the name of God," and justify it. If you already believe in God's existence without "proof" then one should wish to do good in the world. As we often see, that's not a guarantee. Likewise, proving with science that God exists wouldn't cure the ills of the world, I'm afraid.

People who believe in God call this free will. Scientists may call it human nature.

@ Layman, I'm not following what you are saying as it relates to free will?
Sorry.

 

[Layman]

@ Layman, I'm not following what you are saying as it relates to free will?
Sorry.

It doesn't. I was just answering your questions and what I think about them.

I don't believe it is necessary for there to be free will if there is a God. Life as we know it could just be the chains of bondage that limits our immortal souls.

 

[rr6]

God = Non-occupied Spac--Occupied Space--Mind/Intellect--

God = God(ess ) =,

"U"niverse =mind/intellect, non-occupied space, occupied space( Universe ) =,

causally deterministic and orderly Universe = no free will and at best--- i.e. we have superficiall illusion of free will ---a limited free i.e. we have
cosmic/generalized laws/principles that inherent limit what is possible for human to free will to happen.

Fuller gives the example of plane that has gone into a tail spin and that a humans ability to will the plane to come out of tail spin is lessen with skills and many other factors.

Ask 100 differrent people there definition of God/God( ess ) and we will get 50 or more differrent definitions.

Humans have unique ability to have a concept of a finite Universe, and then conceptually place theirself outside of the conceptually finite Universe, as tho they are God( ess ) who then looks back in upon the finite Universe, as if their a God( ess ) holding the whole finite Universe in their God-like hands.

Reality( physical/energy ) and free will are two of the greatest illusions of our finite physical/energy Universe.

Quasi-physical gravity, tho not as osbervable as physical/energy, may actually the more real essence of our physical/energy existence.

Jacob Bekenstiens black hole mathenatics led to subsequent holographic scenarios and his comment that, .."we appear to be 2D creatures having an illusion of 3D".....

The minimal 2D enclosure is closed triangle. If we place nodal-vertexial event inside the triangle and then have a line-of-relationship going from the inner nodal-vertexial event, to each corner, we may have the minimal plane of existence as the minimal solid.

Still tho, it is 2D. So if the inner nodal-vertexial event, were to move to either side of the triangle plane, we now invoke either a warped 2D plane, or a 3D tetra(4)hedron.

Since energy cannot be created nor destroyed, then I take that same cosmic/generalized law/principle and apply it to quasi-physical gravity ergo I believe there eternally exists, a finite set of interrelated gravitational triangles, and resultant squares etc......as our essential, causal deterministic basis for our existence.

r6

 

[river]

God = God(ess ) =,

"U"niverse =mind/intellect, non-occupied space, occupied space( Universe ) =,

causally deterministic and orderly Universe = no free will and at best--- i.e. we have superficiall illusion of free will ---a limited free i.e. we have
cosmic/generalized laws/principles that inherent limit what is possible for human to free will to happen.

Fuller gives the example of plane that has gone into a tail spin and that a humans ability to will the plane to come out of tail spin is lessen with skills and many other factors.

Ask 100 differrent people there definition of God/God( ess ) and we will get 50 or more differrent definitions.

Humans have unique ability to have a concept of a finite Universe, and then conceptually place theirself outside of the conceptually finite Universe, as tho they are God( ess ) who then looks back in upon the finite Universe, as if their a God( ess ) holding the whole finite Universe in their God-like hands.

Reality( physical/energy ) and free will are two of the greatest illusions of our finite physical/energy Universe.

Quasi-physical gravity, tho not as osbervable as physical/energy, may actually the more real essence of our physical/energy existence.

Jacob Bekenstiens black hole mathenatics led to subsequent holographic scenarios and his comment that, .."we appear to be 2D creatures having an illusion of 3D".....

The minimal 2D enclosure is closed triangle. If we place nodal-vertexial event inside the triangle and then have a line-of-relationship going from the inner nodal-vertexial event, to each corner, we may have the minimal plane of existence as the minimal solid.

Still tho, it is 2D. So if the inner nodal-vertexial event, were to move to either side of the triangle plane, we now invoke either a warped 2D plane, or a 3D tetra(4)hedron.

Since energy cannot be created nor destroyed, then I take that same cosmic/generalized law/principle and apply it to quasi-physical gravity ergo I believe there eternally exists, a finite set of interrelated gravitational triangles, and resultant squares etc......as our essential, causal deterministic basis for our existence.

r6

what if the Universe is open rather then a closed system ?