Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Scientific Proof proving GOD has PERSONALITY.


  • Please log in to reply
113 replies to this topic

#16    Paracelse

Paracelse

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,074 posts
  • Joined:02 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:France

Posted 10 January 2012 - 11:52 AM

View PostBeckys_Mom, on 10 January 2012 - 11:33 AM, said:

Science can only explain the things that naturally happen, things that can be measured and observed... As God and the miracles are said to be supernatural.. then science obviously cannot prove the supernatural...only the natural

In order for science to prove God, & the miracles, then God  and the miracles would have to jump from being  the supernatural to - NATURAL ...This would then automatically disqualify God and the miracles from being - supernatural   and it would remove  his divine status...  I thought people would know this or at least understood it
However, don't you think Supernatural events are simply natural things that we can't prove with science yet?   :devil:

Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither Benjamin Franklin
République No.6
It's time for a sixth republic.

#17    Godsnmbr1

Godsnmbr1

    The Bee's Knees

  • Member
  • 2,317 posts
  • Joined:11 Jul 2008
  • Gender:Male

  • There's someone in my head
    but it's not me

Posted 10 January 2012 - 11:57 AM

View PostBeckys_Mom, on 10 January 2012 - 11:33 AM, said:

Science can only explain the things that naturally happen, things that can be measured and observed... As God and the miracles are said to be supernatural.. then science obviously cannot prove the supernatural...only the natural

In order for science to prove God, & the miracles, then God  and the miracles would have to jump from being  the supernatural to - NATURAL ...This would then automatically disqualify God and the miracles from being - supernatural   and it would remove  his divine status...  I thought people would know this or at least understood it

And I thought people would understand the definition of infinity.  You might say that God and nature are two separate things, but that doesn't mean I say it, and it certainly doesn't make it true.  If you think of God as completely separate from creation, it seems to me you might not have a clear understanding of what God actually entails.  

And am I wrong here or has science not always been fueled by the desire to explain the seemingly supernatural?  Actually, I think it'd be fair to say that on some level that's what lies at the heart of all scientific pursuit.

Edited by Godsnmbr1, 10 January 2012 - 11:58 AM.

Remember, we are all just acting out a grand old game here, where we agree to forget who we really are, that in the remembering, that we may find each other again, and know that we are One. That All of Life, is One.

#18    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,305 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The sixth circle

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 10 January 2012 - 12:04 PM

View PostGodsnmbr1, on 10 January 2012 - 11:18 AM, said:

Of course it does. God is All, remember?  Looking for objective truth, no matter the context, will always end with a greater understanding of God.  I just wonder how many of the dismissive posters in this thread actually have a complete idea of what they're dismissing.
God by definition is a deity, science doesn't bother with the existence or actions of such unverifiable entities.


#19    Godsnmbr1

Godsnmbr1

    The Bee's Knees

  • Member
  • 2,317 posts
  • Joined:11 Jul 2008
  • Gender:Male

  • There's someone in my head
    but it's not me

Posted 10 January 2012 - 12:09 PM

View PostRlyeh, on 10 January 2012 - 12:04 PM, said:

God by definition is a deity, science doesn't bother with the existence or actions of such unverifiable entities.

Whose definition?  Certainly not mine.  There's quite a difference between a god and God.  God, by definition, has no definition.

Remember, we are all just acting out a grand old game here, where we agree to forget who we really are, that in the remembering, that we may find each other again, and know that we are One. That All of Life, is One.

#20    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,305 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The sixth circle

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 10 January 2012 - 12:27 PM

View PostGodsnmbr1, on 10 January 2012 - 12:09 PM, said:

Whose definition?  Certainly not mine.  There's quite a difference between a god and God.  God, by definition, has no definition.
Yeah, no definition :rolleyes:
http://dictionary.re....com/browse/god


#21    Godsnmbr1

Godsnmbr1

    The Bee's Knees

  • Member
  • 2,317 posts
  • Joined:11 Jul 2008
  • Gender:Male

  • There's someone in my head
    but it's not me

Posted 10 January 2012 - 12:32 PM

View PostRlyeh, on 10 January 2012 - 12:27 PM, said:


I wonder which man wrote those.  

You honestly don't see how ridiculous it is for a human being to try to define God?  How humorous it is to link to dictionary.com as evidence?  Maybe arrogance would be the more appropriate word...

Remember, we are all just acting out a grand old game here, where we agree to forget who we really are, that in the remembering, that we may find each other again, and know that we are One. That All of Life, is One.

#22    Beckys_Mom

Beckys_Mom

    Sarcastic Muppet..!

  • Member
  • 51,196 posts
  • Joined:01 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Ireland

  • "I hate pretentious people. I mean, what is the point in applying exorbitantly extensive vocabulary, it is just straightforwardly unnecessary".

Posted 10 January 2012 - 12:36 PM

View PostParacelse, on 10 January 2012 - 11:52 AM, said:

However, don't you think Supernatural events are simply natural things that we can't prove with science yet?   :devil:

Absolutely I agree... As it stands at the min we don't understand it, it remains supernatural, like it always has been


IF science did manage to prove Gods existence.. .this will completely strip God of his DIVINE status  and all that goes with it...


..It wont have the special meaning as it once did to believers, it therefore becomes something natural,.


.. It will loose all that spiritually contacted  with believers...It will loose it's special meaning... all that made it stand out will be gone.... we would all just view it as we would any other natural thing ..


..This wont happen over night, in in due time the more people accept the facts that science gave ... it will loose all meaning like it once  had

So, question therefore should be...is it worth trying to scientifically prove God ? ..........  Even though Science does not care to bother with the supernatural... and rightly so..

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 10 January 2012 - 12:36 PM.

Posted ImageRAW Berris... Dare you enter?

If there's a heaven...I hope to hell I get there !

#23    over9millionyearsold

over9millionyearsold

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 296 posts
  • Joined:05 May 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sweden

  • now its only 54.67 on the galactronium scale

Posted 10 January 2012 - 12:40 PM

View PostGodsnmbr1, on 10 January 2012 - 12:09 PM, said:

Whose definition?  Certainly not mine.  There's quite a difference between a god and God.  God, by definition, has no definition.

It's so nice to see how persistent deists/theists are with making unfounded opinions into fact and considering their own definitions reasonable. There is no difference between a god and God. It's like saying there is a difference between that of your dog who is called Dog and other dogs. God(s) do have a definition. Your incapability to define something doesn't make something indefinable by default.

Quoting scripture and ancient opaque texts of unknown origins does not quantify as evidence, nor does it prove the existence of any deity. Science does not confirm nor deny the existence of god(s) simply because it's completely irrelevant to how science works.

As to the OP, there is nothing remotely scientific about any of the content. It's completely biased, opinionated, and presumptuous.


#24    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,305 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The sixth circle

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 10 January 2012 - 12:48 PM

View PostGodsnmbr1, on 10 January 2012 - 12:32 PM, said:

You honestly don't see how ridiculous it is for a human being to try to define God?  How humorous it is to link to dictionary.com as evidence?  Maybe arrogance would be the more appropriate word...
God is a word, humans invented it. What you're suggesting is asinine.

Would you rather use words that have no definition? How the hell would anyone know what you're talking about?

Edited by Rlyeh, 10 January 2012 - 12:49 PM.


#25    Godsnmbr1

Godsnmbr1

    The Bee's Knees

  • Member
  • 2,317 posts
  • Joined:11 Jul 2008
  • Gender:Male

  • There's someone in my head
    but it's not me

Posted 10 January 2012 - 12:49 PM

View Postover9millionyearsold, on 10 January 2012 - 12:40 PM, said:

It's so nice to see how persistent deists/theists are with making unfounded opinions into fact and considering their own definitions reasonable. There is no difference between a god and God. It's like saying there is a difference between that of your dog who is called Dog and other dogs. God(s) do have a definition. Your incapability to define something doesn't make something indefinable by default.

Quoting scripture and ancient opaque texts of unknown origins does not quantify as evidence, nor does it prove the existence of any deity. Science does not confirm nor deny the existence of god(s) simply because it's completely irrelevant to how science works.

As to the OP, there is nothing remotely scientific about any of the content. It's completely biased, opinionated, and presumptuous.

You think of God as a title, or just a name.  A status or a category.  I can understand this because I used to think that way as well.  Then I realized my mistake.  You will too, someday.  If you want to.

Edit:  As for your example, do you really not see the difference between Dog and a dog?  It's not comparable to the difference between God and a god, but it's there nonetheless.

Edited by Godsnmbr1, 10 January 2012 - 12:58 PM.

Remember, we are all just acting out a grand old game here, where we agree to forget who we really are, that in the remembering, that we may find each other again, and know that we are One. That All of Life, is One.

#26    Godsnmbr1

Godsnmbr1

    The Bee's Knees

  • Member
  • 2,317 posts
  • Joined:11 Jul 2008
  • Gender:Male

  • There's someone in my head
    but it's not me

Posted 10 January 2012 - 12:56 PM

View PostRlyeh, on 10 January 2012 - 12:48 PM, said:

God is a word, humans invented it. What you're suggesting is asinine.

Would you rather use words that have no definition? How the hell would anyone know what you're talking about?

I use the word because it's currently the most accurate available in our common language.  Notice I wrote most accurate, not simply accurate.  And I'm fairly sure you still don't know what I'm talking about so your last question seems a bit redundant.  I guess some people are just able to understand the implied difference between God and a god and some people aren't. So it goes...

Remember, we are all just acting out a grand old game here, where we agree to forget who we really are, that in the remembering, that we may find each other again, and know that we are One. That All of Life, is One.

#27    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,305 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The sixth circle

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 10 January 2012 - 12:59 PM

View PostGodsnmbr1, on 10 January 2012 - 12:56 PM, said:

I use the word because it's currently the most accurate available in our common language.  Notice I wrote most accurate, not simply accurate.  And I'm fairly sure you still don't know what I'm talking about so your last question seems a bit redundant.  I guess some people are just able to understand the implied difference between God and a god and some people aren't. So it goes...
So you use a word that has a definition but criticize humans for defining it.
Makes perfect sense..

Some people are just natural BS artists.


#28    Godsnmbr1

Godsnmbr1

    The Bee's Knees

  • Member
  • 2,317 posts
  • Joined:11 Jul 2008
  • Gender:Male

  • There's someone in my head
    but it's not me

Posted 10 January 2012 - 01:07 PM

View PostRlyeh, on 10 January 2012 - 12:59 PM, said:

So you use a word that has a definition but criticize humans for defining it.
Makes perfect sense..

Some people are just natural BS artists.

I had hoped you could think beyond the bounds of dictionary.com

Language is supposed to be an evolving medium, after all.  But think of me as you will. Doesn't mean much in the end.

Remember, we are all just acting out a grand old game here, where we agree to forget who we really are, that in the remembering, that we may find each other again, and know that we are One. That All of Life, is One.

#29    Englishgent

Englishgent

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,909 posts
  • Joined:24 Sep 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bangkok Thailand

  • all dinosaurs are thin at one end, much, much thicker in the middle, then thin again at the far end -- Monty Python

Posted 10 January 2012 - 01:29 PM

View PostGodsnmbr1, on 10 January 2012 - 12:56 PM, said:

I use the word because it's currently the most accurate available in our common language.  Notice I wrote most accurate, not simply accurate.  And I'm fairly sure you still don't know what I'm talking about so your last question seems a bit redundant.  I guess some people are just able to understand the implied difference between God and a god and some people aren't. So it goes...

You accused somebody else of being arrogant a few posts back. There are none so arrogant as those who think they know something that non believers dont know!


#30    over9millionyearsold

over9millionyearsold

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 296 posts
  • Joined:05 May 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sweden

  • now its only 54.67 on the galactronium scale

Posted 10 January 2012 - 01:33 PM

View PostGodsnmbr1, on 10 January 2012 - 12:49 PM, said:

You think of God as a title, or just a name.  A status or a category.  I can understand this because I used to think that way as well.  Then I realized my mistake.  You will too, someday.  If you want to.

Edit:  As for your example, do you really not see the difference between Dog and a dog?  It's not comparable to the difference between God and a god, but it's there nonetheless.

It is a title/name, by definition and by our language. The dog called Dog is a dog. Just as in the same fashion as human, cat, or fish. God, as Christians like to posit, is a god. One of many gods that have ever been worshiped and that are being currently worshiped.

"...but it's there nonetheless."

Really? What kind of statement is that? You are claiming a distinction where there is none - literally. I don't know what implication you are proposing with the capitalization, but certainly it's not anything congruent with the English language. I'm having a difficult time understanding what you are trying to express here. Perhaps you should elaborate further rather than just saying, "it's there".


The human mind is very prone to hallucination, especially by itself. Your consciousness is, hopefully, equipped with reason and logic; the very tools which you have to combat against such delusions and hallucinations. No one is immune to this. One's ability to logically reason with themselves and detect these falsehoods is the way to truly appreciate of how the world around us is.


EDIT: Additionally, language does evolve. It does so with consensus, so people can't start making up words and meanings for existing ones and using them to communicate. Otherwise you couldn't read anything without having to ask the author for the meaning of each word. There is a reason we have a dictionary and definitions for words. So people can understand what you mean.

Edited by over9millionyearsold, 10 January 2012 - 01:39 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users