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

#91    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,234 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 24 May 2013 - 09:04 PM

I got as far as the bottom of the first page.  So far, we have misunderstand both proof and science.

Science addresses only the physical universe.  Metaphysics is something else.

Science doesn't prove things.  It merely produces the best explanation given the evidence available at the time.

Would you like to carry this to the next step and prove you don't understand religion, either?
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#92    Orcseeker

Orcseeker

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,749 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 25 May 2013 - 02:22 PM

Why did you dig this thread back up? Put the poor thing to sleep.


#93    CS Lewis

CS Lewis

    Alien Embryo

  • Banned
  • Pip
  • 84 posts
  • Joined:18 May 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mexico City

Posted 11 June 2013 - 06:12 AM

Science does prove things, either right or wrong. Of course theres also qualification & relative evidence & knowledge. Etc. ...

Edited by CS Lewis, 11 June 2013 - 06:12 AM.


#94    Steven R

Steven R

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Joined:30 Mar 2014
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 30 March 2014 - 03:29 AM

Whoa!, I was just searching this topic on God on here, browsing much of this Forum, and I thought:  this is wonderful and cherished info and knowledge right here that proves, at least in part, God as the most real Being of all.  Thank you friends, I found this uplifting!

:clap:

I look forward to sharing at least partially on many of these alternative topics.  Regards!,
Steven Richard


Edited by Steven R, 30 March 2014 - 03:30 AM.


#95    davros of skaro

davros of skaro

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,379 posts
  • Joined:08 Sep 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Skaro

  • ", because in most cases men willingly believe what they wish."-Julius Caesar 'De Bello Gallico, Book III, Ch. 18'

Posted 30 March 2014 - 04:14 AM

View PostSteven R, on 30 March 2014 - 03:29 AM, said:

Whoa!, I was just searching this topic on God on here, browsing much of this Forum, and I thought:  this is wonderful and cherished info and knowledge right here that proves, at least in part, God as the most real Being of all.  Thank you friends, I found this uplifting!

:clap:

I look forward to sharing at least partially on many of these alternative topics.  Regards!,
Steven Richard


If you come across evidence for Unicorns having Tea Parties on the rings of Saturn please let me know.

Edited by davros of skaro, 30 March 2014 - 04:15 AM.

Posted Image
"I am Caesar and no king" - Gaius Julius Caesar
http://m.youtube.com...h?v=MzrIHdN9O7M <-- "Ten Lies About Jesus"
http://m.youtube.com...h?v=MclBbZUFSag <-- "Gospels=Myth Making"
https://m.youtube.co...h?v=79Lmmy2jfeo <-- "The Mythical Jesus"

#96    Steven R

Steven R

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Joined:30 Mar 2014
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 30 March 2014 - 05:05 AM

What? Give this very same so-called Proof some chance, man!...


#97    davros of skaro

davros of skaro

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,379 posts
  • Joined:08 Sep 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Skaro

  • ", because in most cases men willingly believe what they wish."-Julius Caesar 'De Bello Gallico, Book III, Ch. 18'

Posted 30 March 2014 - 11:25 AM

View PostSteven R, on 30 March 2014 - 05:05 AM, said:

What? Give this very same so-called Proof some chance, man!...

Hey man, You have your cult while I have mine.

http://en.wikipedia....he_Urantia_Book

Posted Image
"I am Caesar and no king" - Gaius Julius Caesar
http://m.youtube.com...h?v=MzrIHdN9O7M <-- "Ten Lies About Jesus"
http://m.youtube.com...h?v=MclBbZUFSag <-- "Gospels=Myth Making"
https://m.youtube.co...h?v=79Lmmy2jfeo <-- "The Mythical Jesus"

#98    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,047 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 30 March 2014 - 12:08 PM

That's something I've wondered about: if God is perfect how can He have a personality or free will since in his perfection there can at no time be one perfect choice?


#99    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,047 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 30 March 2014 - 12:09 PM

View Postdavros of skaro, on 30 March 2014 - 04:14 AM, said:

If you come across evidence for Unicorns having Tea Parties on the rings of Saturn please let me know.
Now I had it they were mermaids and the tea parties were actually something a bit more interesting.


#100    Steven R

Steven R

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Joined:30 Mar 2014
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 30 March 2014 - 01:13 PM

View Postdavros of skaro, on 30 March 2014 - 11:25 AM, said:

Hey man, You have your cult while I have mine.

http://en.wikipedia....he_Urantia_Book
From http://Ubron.org:

Quote

[UBRON: General] The Wikipedia Urantia Book Page, I NEED HELP!
Arie, I'm sending this email with colors and formating direct to your Gmail, but I'm copying here for others to add to if they want:
Hey Arie,
I've been down this path before, but I think you can manage and hope you receive the help you seek. I went through the Wikipedia battle with 'Xaxafrad' last year (watch out for him!). He insisted that my attempts at defending the criticism of the UB science (copied/pasted for you below) be on the 'talk' page. I was reluctant for that because no one sees the talk page, but relented. But then soon after he just took away all of my bullets from even the talk page. I gave up the good fight, so I'm glad you're picking it back up and in a better way than I had thought of, by suggesting a parallel section supporting UB's scientific predictions. I'm not going to help right now as I'm short on time right now (just think this email took me a little over an hour to write), but I support you and applaud your efforts! Norm (from another Forum) shared with me this paper written by Denver Pearson that you may enjoy: http://www.freeurant...g/sci-integ.htm. And Geoff Taylor shared with me this attachment, which i also hope you appreciate and enjoy.
I was successful, though, in taking out Criticism #4 (below) last month from the Wikipedia page and Xaxafrad apparently hasn't noticed because it's still not in the bullet list under 'Criticism of its Science', but it was there for years and a common misconception that I couldn't tolerate seeing. The others (below) aren't so slam dunk so I'm letting them there, but maybe you can help with this information (below and attached). Good luck!!
These are my failed efforts at clarifying some misconceptions about TUB and its cosmology on Wikipedia. The book does say as you know that the science will be in need of revision in the future, but I just don't believe that that implies anything stated in the book is factually incorrect --- rather I take that as being new information will be added or wording replacement (e.g. replacing "48 chromosomes" for "48 units of pattern control") . I'm probably in the minority camp that believe the book is infallible. I've also seen many near-plagiarisms, but I think the plagiarisms are on purpose and consistent with rediscovering our own human information for our own namesake book. Without further ado, here are my efforts:
===========================================================
CRITICISM #1 - BEFORE: A fundamental particle called an "ultimaton" is proposed, with an electron being composed of 100 ultimatons. The particle is not known to be described anywhere else and the concept is not supported by modern particle physics.
CRITICISM #1 - AFTER: A fundamental ... anywhere else but while the concept is not known to be supported by modern particle physics there is speculation among readers that it is the Higgs boson.
http://rajan-c-mathe...caused-our.html
===========================================================
CRITICISM #2 - BEFORE: Some species are said to have evolved suddenly from single mutations without transitional species. The theory originated with Dutch botanist Hugo De Vries, but was short-lived and is not now supported.
CRITICISM #2 - AFTER: Some species ... Dutch botanist Hugo De Vries but despite the landmark paper published in 1972 by paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould much skepticism persists in this research, now known as punctuated equilibrium.
http://en.wikipedia....ted_equilibrium
===========================================================
CRITICISM #3 - BEFORE: According to Paper 58, life was implanted 550 million years ago, yet scientists have found evidence of bacterial life and fossil Stromatolite in Australia up to 3.5 billion years old.
CRITICISM #3 - AFTER: According to Paper 58, life ... years old. A 2002 finding on graphite and a later study on carbon within metamorphic rock, though, calls for a reassessment of prior scientific evidence of the earliest life dating.
http://www.nature.co...ature00934.html
http://www.scienceda...10518121227.htm
(**A NEWER UNFORTUNATE FINDING WAS IN THE NEWS A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO NOW SUGGESTS MORE THAN 4 BILLION**)
===========================================================
CRITICISM #4 - BEFORE: The book repeats the scientific understanding at the time of its publication that one side of the planet Mercury always is turned to the sun due to tidal locking: "The planets nearest the sun were the first to have their revolutions slowed down by tidal friction. Such gravitational influences also contribute to the stabilization of planetary orbits while acting as a brake on the rate of planetary-axial revolution, causing a planet to revolve ever slower until axial revolution ceases, leaving one hemisphere of the planet always turned toward the sun or larger body, as is illustrated by the planet Mercury and by the moon, which always turns the same face toward Urantia." In 1965, radio astronomers discovered that Mercury actually rotates fast enough for all sides to see exposure to the sun.
CRITICISM #4 - AFTER: The book apparently repeats the idea prevalent at the time of its origin that one side of the planet Mercury always faces the Sun due to tidal locking. In 1965, radio astronomers discovered that Mercury actually rotates fast enough for all sides to see exposure to the Sun: "The planets nearest the sun ... toward Urantia." Whereas some avid readers have cited a nonchalant definition of the axial-revolution concept as the source for this technical inconsistency, claiming that the book actually did "a good job of avoiding erroneous science at the time of publication", another analysis of this possible misinterpretation lends credence to the speculation that Mercury and the Moon are only given as illustrations of axial revolution that is braking, i.e., slowing down, whereas the Moon alone is given as an example of a space body that has ceased to rotate on its axis. The "causing a planet to..." phrase and "leaving one..." sub-phrase are therefore provided to qualify the end result of the braking process, since Mercury and the Moon are not both referred to in the last phrase, "which always turns..." because if they were then the verb would need to be plural and thus "turn" rather than "turns".
http://www.ubthenews...ics/mercury.htm
===========================================================
CRITICISM #5 - BEFORE: The book says that a solar eclipse was predicted in 1808 by the Native American prophet Tenskwatawa. The eclipse was actually predicted in late April 1806 and occurred on June 16, 1806.
CRITICISM #5 - AFTER: The original, 1955 edition of the book and editions still in print by The Urantia Book Fellowship say that a solar eclipse was predicted in 1808 by the Native American prophet Tenskwatawa. The eclipse was actually predicted in late April 1806 and occurred on June 16, 1806. Some subsequent publications now show in later editions the correct 1806 date per the standardization of text efforts led by the Urantia Foundation, having attributed this "obvious mistake" to a single digit keystroke error.
http://www.urantia.o...standardization
===========================================================
CRITICISM #6: Section 4 of Paper 15 of The Uranta Book states, Andromeda has a distance of "almost one million years" from our planet, repeating contemporary findings by astronomers Hubble and Shapley, but today, it is well known that this galaxy, M31, is more than two million light years distant.
This one threw me for a loop. I searched and searched but indeed. The latest science is that Andromeda is more than two million light years away. When i asked for help on UBRON Allen Graycek wrote back with: "There are important issues still remaining in regard to the accuracy of measuring space distance. Astronomers are using what they consider accurate methods of distance measure, but there is evidence that those methods may not yield correct answers to Andromeda’s distance. Here is one example from Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaris Polaris is a binary system. The problem is that even though Polaris is close to us and therefore can be measured by triangulation, it’s CG is not stationary because it is a binary system. Better analysis seems to indicate it is closer to us than previously thought by 30%. Another is:
http://www.newscient...an-thought.html
The Perseus arm is about half what astronomers thought. Another is the measurement to SS Cygni:
http://www.scienceda...30523143006.htm SS Cygni is again about 30% closer than previously measured. An interesting derivation by Opik in 1922:
http://cfa-www.harva.../ay202/opik.pdf
This is a calculation based on several factors including integration of light from Andromeda. Distance as originally calculated is about 1.5 million Lys. One order of magnitude increase in star brightness puts the distance at about 1 million Lys, if one is to compensate for gas absorption. We just have to wait for improved methods to find a more accurate distance to Andromeda. It may not be easy for astronomers to become convinced of this due to four independent methods of calculation of Andromeda’s distance, but their calculations were all based on the intrinsic brightness of Cepheid variables without sufficient absorption compensation, I have to say." Matt Neibaur then wrote and shared this: An interesting youtube video explaining the problem with redshift and quasars:
.
There are several parts to it. Huge LQG Quasar Group defies the given "Big Bang" timeline (13.5 - 15 Billion "years" ago) ONCE AGAIN proving redshift is neither an accurate measurement of age OR DISTANCE....
===========================================================
CRITICISM #7: Controversial statements about human races can be found in the book. Supporters state that criticism has arisen mainly due to reading passages out of context. Gardner believes that William S. Sadler, who wrote some eugenicist works, had a hand in editing or writing the book, and that this is how the ideas were included.
Not sure how to address this one...
===========================================================
CRITICISM #8: The described formation of the solar system is consistent with the Chamberlin-Moulton planetesimal hypothesis. Though popular in the early part of the 20th century, by the early 1940s it was discarded by Henry Russell's argument that it was incompatible with the angular momentum of planets such as Jupiter. The currently accepted scientific explanation for the origin of the solar system is based on the nebular hypothesis.
I never got around to contesting this one either, but I think it would be easy, since the book frequently references the nebular formations of the early stages of universe creation.
===========================================================
CRITICISM #9: According to the book's descriptions, the universe is hundreds of billions of years old and periodically expands and contracts — "respires" — at 2-billion-year intervals.Current observations, however, suggest that the true age of the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years, and there are no cycles of expansion and contraction. The big bang theory is not supported. I also didn't respond to this... because saying Jesus coming with the Holy Spirit to create the universe was the big bang for our universe or maybe I'm wrong about that. Thoughts??
My full postings for the above (i.e. without the "...") can be seen in the link below under the 'history' tab of the Wikepedia page from November and December 2012. The link was the last time I tried, unsuccessfully, to make a permanent edit to the page and keep the first five, above clarifications on the main page:
http://en.wikipedia....oldid=530499340
From there if you want to copy/paste what I had written I had gotten all the links and such properly formatted in the Wikipedia language.
As you can tell I'm a believer in the infallibility of the book as I just can't comprehend why they would provide us with purposefully false information even if they were limited to relaying back to us our own human findings. Here's some NEW evidence discrediting the out-of-africa theory of evolution. It comes from an NY times article, titled "Baffling 400,000-Year-Old Clue to Human Origins" is the following: "'Humans’ ancestors, meanwhile, stayed in Africa, giving rise to Homo sapiens about 200,000 years ago. Humans then expanded from Africa into Asia and Europe about 60,000 years ago. They then interbred not only with Neanderthals, but with Denisovans, too. Later, both the Denisovans and Neanderthals became extinct. 'Now we have to rethink the whole story,' Dr. Arsuaga said."
http://www.nytimes.c...ef=science&_r=0
For older info:
http://en.wikipedia...._of_Asia_theory
I'm mentioning evolution and that theory mostly to give credit to the 'out of asia theory' and not so much to dismiss the other. Also, by doing so I am giving credence to UB's revealed first human being 1,000,000 years ago rather than 100,000 or the most recent theory of 400,000, which was a news sensation about a month or so ago.
Good luck!!
ede

Message: 163974 From: Arie Van Tuijl Subject: The Wikipedia Urantia Book Page, I NEED HELP! Date: Thu, Jan 2, 2014, 10:11 AM Topic: General
Hey Everyone,

I'm trying to add a section entitled, "Scientific Corroborations" to the wikipedia page... but AS ALWAYS the editors with an agenda to downgrade the Urantia Book keep erasing my edit. Isn't it amazing that they allow a whole section on "Criticism of the Science" which is ALL attributed to Gardner, but they won't allow a comparable section on scientific confirmations? One guy said I have to have a "peer-reviewed science paper" state that the "dark islands" are black holes when someone with an IQ of 50 can read the paragraph in paper 15 and understand that they are black holes. DUH, what other cosmic object is "devoid of light" and exerts a "density that...is well-nigh unbelievable"? I thought discussing how "dark islands of space" are black holes and how the UB states they are commonplace would be INDISPUTABLE... but not to these moronic wikipedia editors. I need your guys help. HELP ME WIN and add a section for scientific corroborations. The text below is my exact edit. If you go to the wikipedia page and click on "View History," my wikipedia name is Zanzibar606.

You will have to sign in to make edits. Thanks!

==Scientific Corroborations== ===Black Holes=== When the Urantia Book was published in 1955, there was only a theoretical understanding for the existence of black holes. Known as "dark islands of space" in the Urantia Book, the book describes them in Paper 15, "These are the dead suns and other large aggregations of matter devoid of light and heat. The dark islands are sometimes enormous in mass and exert a powerful influence in universe equilibrium and energy manipulation. The density of some of these large masses is well-nigh unbelievable." The Urantia Book describes their existence as a commonplace feature of the universe. In the section, "The Spheres of Space,"[95] the Urantia Book states five major divisions of spheres, and the "dark islands" make up the second. The first generally recognized black hole was discovered in 1970 named Cygnus X-1. Astronomers now recognize that black holes are a fundamental object of the cosmos. In addition, Astronomers have discovered supermassive black holes at the center of galaxies. The first supermassive black hole was discovered by Bruce Balick and Robert Brown in 1974, located at the center of the Milky Way galaxy.



#101    davros of skaro

davros of skaro

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,379 posts
  • Joined:08 Sep 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Skaro

  • ", because in most cases men willingly believe what they wish."-Julius Caesar 'De Bello Gallico, Book III, Ch. 18'

Posted 30 March 2014 - 08:31 PM

View PostSteven R, on 30 March 2014 - 01:13 PM, said:


OH WOW!

A collaboration of people put together a magic book heavily peppered with pseudoscienctific jargon, and ancient myths.I can pick, and stretch what ever I want to believe out of it to make it true.

You cannot get any more proof than that.

You know what grinds my gears?I watch the News every night, and not once do they give mention to the heroic deeds of the Superfriends.Only sort of mention was about an upcoming Comicon, but you and I know that's different.

Posted Image
"I am Caesar and no king" - Gaius Julius Caesar
http://m.youtube.com...h?v=MzrIHdN9O7M <-- "Ten Lies About Jesus"
http://m.youtube.com...h?v=MclBbZUFSag <-- "Gospels=Myth Making"
https://m.youtube.co...h?v=79Lmmy2jfeo <-- "The Mythical Jesus"

#102    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,234 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 31 March 2014 - 12:21 AM

Aren't we all forgetting that "god" has never been defined?  Each "proof" merely finds that something about "god" is consistent with the presenter's definition.  But if you don't agree with the definition, the whole thing crashes down into a pile of gibberish.

But there is a definition that can solve the problem and at the same time transcend all arguments about "god" and the existence thereof.  That definition is:

God = the unknown.

Christians already use this definition.  They say god is infinite.  But infinity is undefined, and if undefined, unknowable.

If a Christian/Muslim says, "God did it,"  then for him/her that statement is true.  But if god is undefined, that is the same as saying "I haven't got a clue."  And the atheist can agree with that.

Voila'!  The God does/does not exist argument is rendered irrelevant.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#103    Daughter of the Nine Moons

Daughter of the Nine Moons

    ☆。Fearstriker Do'Teh 。☆

  • 14,411 posts
  • Joined:11 Jan 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:I forgot...

  • ☆彡

Posted 03 April 2014 - 01:53 AM

As a reminder - Please  respect the beliefs of other members, That means no flaming, no flamebaiting, no trolling and no personal attacks.

They're weak to fire! - Sugarbear

#104    ZOD

ZOD

    Future Leader of Earth

  • Member
  • 5,018 posts
  • Joined:02 Aug 2013
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 03 April 2014 - 02:06 AM

View PostFrank Merton, on 30 March 2014 - 12:08 PM, said:

That's something I've wondered about: if God is perfect how can He have a personality or free will since in his perfection there can at no time be one perfect choice?

Shot in the dark?

If God is, then God is the definign characteristic of perfection, so that perfection doesn't define God but God defines perfection?

Battle isn't wordplay.  It's skill and precision.  Get it? I'm better.


#105    Perceptivum

Perceptivum

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 301 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2014
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

  • Too many freaks, not enough circuses.

Posted 03 April 2014 - 03:55 PM

View PostNeognosis, on 09 January 2012 - 02:49 PM, said:

I immediately regret wasting my time opening this thread.

:cry:

"Even if you are in a minority of one, the truth is still the truth". - Ghandi

"A conspiracy is a truth awaiting revelation." - Me




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users