How to prove that GOD exists from a scientific point of view?

[2PhiloVoid]

Wow... I don't need to respond to that long-winded and self-justifying post when you clearly took my words to be an insult to you personally and not a simple observation to get you to think about your understanding of the cross. You obviously have no understanding of what dying to the flesh actually means because you spend more time speaking about yourself than you do about God or the gospel of Jesus Christ. It's the reason "Christianity" is in the state it's in today. Goodbye @2PhiloVoid

Lead the way to the Way, then, Pipp!

 

[Astrid]

Pipp, that's partially correct. But don't challenge me unless you're willing to take up the gauntlet of education. Because, I will educate you.

I'm no longer going to live the rest of my life waiting for fellow Christians to get a clue so we can have peace with each other.

Take this as a Paul preaching to Peter moment. Think of it as if, in some odd way, I'm Paul and you're Peter.




You're definitely wrong, and, what's more, you might want to reel in those spiritual judgments you're throwing my way. I'd appreciate it if you would. I don't doubt or seek to depricate your faith----however 'newly' found it is. I'm here to help. But if other Christians think they're going to set me straight, they have another thing coming. It's that simple!

And anyone, even you, can claim to be a Christian and go around poking others in the eye with your zeal. I appreciate your zeal, but don't try to shine your newly lit light into my face. I already have the Light.

Have you detected Christian who can
be set straight?
My experience is with the yec sorts who
-for I, you, me, or the man behind the tree know-
may be exactly right o about what the Bible says.

It does, after all, quite clearly state there were
six days of creation, there was a flood. Etc.

I'm a lot like a creationist; I take the Bible at its
word.

What I find interesting in yecs is their utter rigid
inability to learn anything that contradicts some
idea about science they've concocted.

Not something that contradicts their
chosen interpretation of what they've decided
the bible means- I'd never expect that.

No, it's something irrelevant to Bible readin' that
I'm talking about.

Like say, that science does not do proof. Never found
a yec that will give a inch once they've said it does

It's an odd mentality, to me. Belief in personal infallibikity

I see that you too are not about to be set straight .
Don't try to tell you, for lo, you already know.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Have you detected Christian who can
be set straight?
My experience is with the yec sorts who
-for I, you, me, or the man behind the tree know-
may be exactly right o about what the Bible says.

It does, after all, quite clearly state there were
six days of creation, there was a flood. Etc.

I'm a lot like a creationist; I take the Bible at its
word.

What I find interesting in yecs is their utter rigid
inability to learn anything that contradicts some
idea about science they've concocted.

Not something that contradicts their
chosen interpretation of what they've decided
the bible means- I'd never expect that.

No, it's something irrelevant to Bible readin' that
I'm talking about.

Like say, that science does not do proof. Never found
a yec that will give a inch once they've said it does

It's an odd mentality, to me. Belief in personal infallibikity

Yes. I've always thought fundamentalists are an odd lot, even when I was baptized by them in one of their own churches.

I see that you too are not about to be set straight .
Don't try to tell you, for lo, you already know.

I've learned from the best. That's why I don't think like the rest!

 

[Astrid]

Anyone can quote scripture. That doesn't make a theologian (or a prophet) out of you. Keep that in mind, bro!

Tis said that Satan knows scripture!
And that vanity is his favourite vice

 

[Astrid]

Yes. I've always thought fundamentalists are an odd lot, even when I was baptized by them in one of their own churches.


I've learned from the best. That's why I don't think like the rest!

See " vanity", and whose favourite vice it is.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Tis said that Satan knows scripture!
And that vanity is his favourite vice

Today, "having knowledge" is apparently a vice, too.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

See " vanity", and whose favourite vice it is.

Yours?

 

[Astrid]

Pipp. Have I ever had a spiritual attack? Yes, I have had what I'd consider a "spiritual attack." However, the way in which I perceive such a thing and how I define might be a little different than yours.

Keep in mind, Pipp, that I've been a Christian for 36 years. I'm no "newb." I'm also not ignorant, uneducated, or naive. So, may I make a suggestion?

You dont even have ANY idea as to my thoughts, my studies or my faith. So, please. Spare us both some unneeded friction. I'm way beyond what you're estimating that I am. And I say this very soberly. If people think this is arrogant for me to say so, TOO BAD!!! You know what I'm going to say in return? I'm going to say that God (as Paul briefly stated in the letter to the Romans) doesn't put a high value on "zeal without knowledge."

So yeah. I'm anything BUT close minded. I'm expansive in my thoughts and studies. Don't belittle that. Don't slight it.

As for your precious stones video, I already indicated to you that I thought it was interesting. But one small insight doesn't make a systematic theology---not that I think one can really successfully pull off a bona-fide comprehensive theology, no matter how systematic their method is, but we all know some Christian theologians who have done a fairly decent job.

Precious stones video? There outta be some terrif theology in something like that.
Wheretoof do you reference?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Tis said that Satan knows scripture!
And that vanity is his favourite vice

Yep. That's one reason I suggest folks read C.S. Lewis,' The Screwtape Letters. It's always good to get another viewpoint --- or 10 ---- for contrasts.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Precious stones video? There outta be some terrif theology in something like that. Wheretoof do you
reference?

Ask Pipp. He's the one with "that knowledge."

 

[Astrid]

Today, "having knowledge" is apparently a vice, too.

That's irrelevant to and unresponsive of
course, but that you already knew.

What's the reference to knowledge as a vice?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You aren't going anywhere with this, because we've got 2 genders,
anything else is a fabrication and a lie, Period.

Sexuality is complicated across the animal kingdom. In humans, there are predominantly two genetic sexes, with a very small percentage of chromosomal divergence (e.g. XXY, X, XYY, XXX). There are predominantly two anatomical sex configurations, with a small percentage of anatomically different presentations. These non-binary variations are generally called 'intersex' for want of a better word.

When it comes to physiological sex, there is a broad spectrum with two broad peaks corresponding to normative male and female. The spectrum is broad because it involves both genetic and developmental influences.

A peaked distribution also applies to sexual preference and gender identity, which are also the result of genetic and developmental influences (gender identity is the personal sense of one's own gender). The peaks roughly correspond to normative physiological male & female (reversed for sexual preference).

For those outside the normative peaks of those distributions, problems arise, not just from general ignorance and cultural inertia, but for the many who are between those normative peaks and either extreme of the spectrum, there are conflicting social and psychological pressures, and the physiological and psychologically pressures of puberty just serve to complicate things.

Categorising the world and dividing continua into arbitrary blocks helps us understand and organise the world by simplifying it, particularly socially and culturally, but they're often crude approximations that don't always mesh with individual experience.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's irrelevant to and unresponsive of
course, but that you already knew.

What's the reference to knowledge as a vice?

Y'know, I was never tempted to tout this as a vice to any of my professors at uni. I'm not sure why some folks think it's a big point of "spiritual valor."

To me, citing this as a vice and claiming it as such too vociforously is a form of false humility, and one that some Christians try to use via their own eisegesis to pin down and shame and cajole other people, even other Christians. I don't buy, and I don't think God does either. Something about that, "zeal without knowledge" being a vice coming to mind.

 

[Astrid]

Ask Pipp. He's the one with "that knowledge."

Never mind then. He and I don't get along.

 

[Astrid]

Yours?

So you do have even more in common with yecs
than I'd thought.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Oh, and how about this time when they literally slapped a Ford badge on a car that also came with Chevy badges? Apart from the badge, it was literally the same car.

https://www.hemmings.com/stories/2016/11/25/that-one-time-both-ford-and-chevrolet-rebadged-the-same-vehicle

That is also the case for the Toyota Yaris Mk4 and the Mazda 2 hybrid

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's irrelevant to and unresponsive of
course, but that you already knew.

What's the reference to knowledge as a vice?

The reference they like is usually an extraction of 1 Corinthians 8:1, torn out of its contexts. Then, after they've cited that, its spins out of control when they then link up a bunch of other isolated texts like pearls on a string necklace. It's artificially done, but I guess they think it's a beautiful thing.

 

[Astrid]

Y'know, I was never tempted to tout this as a vice to any of my professors at uni. I'm not sure why some folks think it's a big point of "spiritual valor."

To me, citing this as a vice and claiming it as such too vociforously is a form of false humility, and one that some Christians try to use via their own eisegesis to pin down and shame and cajole other people, even other Christians. I don't buy, and I don't think God does either. Something about that, "zeal without knowledge" being a vice coming to mind.

Gotcha. A lot of militant anti- intellectualism
milling about.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So you do have even more in common with yecs
than I'd thought.

Oh please, Estrid! Can we not do this today? Don't make me pull out my copy Orwell's 1984 and have to slap your hand with it...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So if beliefs can be scientifically proven or adhered to, why not do the same for the belief in God?

Why bother? There's abundant evidence for belief in God (and thousands of other gods). No evidence of God though...