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

[Kylie]

Then I'll go ahead and take your Post 1420 with a grain of salt.

The [human] authors of the Bible died for what they wrote; and I personally believe JKR would not have, since she knew she wrote fiction.

In other words: no comparison.

And again, we do not know who the human authors of the Bible were for the most part, so we can say nothing of their deaths.

 

[AV1611VET]

And again, we do not know who the human authors of the Bible were for the most part,

Want a hint?

 

[Opdrey]

And again, we do not know who the human authors of the Bible were for the most part, so we can say nothing of their deaths.

But it makes for a lot more exciting story if they died for writing the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Want a hint?

How could you possible give a hint? Have you studied the Bible properly? Simply reading the Bible and interpreting it in a manner that makes the reader happy is not proper study. One has to go beyond just the Bible to study it.

 

[ruthiesea]

Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

That is not an observed phenomenon. It is an opinion.

 

[Kylie]

Want a hint?

You have some actual evidence that has been hidden from actual researchers which clearly identifies the authors, do you?

And don't say it's "faith" or something like that, since we both know I won't accept it.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Want a hint?

Why, have you found one?

 

[Opdrey]

Why, have you found one?

Would YOU like a hint?

 

[Opdrey]

That is not an observed phenomenon. It is an opinion.

I believe that if it is in the Bible it is not considered an "opinion" by AV.

 

[Opdrey]

How could you possible give a hint? Have you studied the Bible properly?

By definition.

Simply reading the Bible and interpreting it in a manner that makes the reader happy is not proper study.

Seems to me that in any given religion that is exactly the proper way to do it. Not that it makes OTHERS happy, but the reader is intended to be happy.

One has to go beyond just the Bible to study it.

Nope. In fact using information outside of the Bible may lead you to error. You can rely on "revelation" in some religious traditions, so the only tools you have are the Bible and your imagination.

God will do the rest.

 

[Subduction Zone]

By definition.



Seems to me that in any given religion that is exactly the proper way to do it. Not that it makes OTHERS happy, but the reader is intended to be happy.



Nope. In fact using information outside of the Bible may lead you to error. You can rely on "revelation" in some religious traditions, so the only tools you have are the Bible and your imagination.

God will do the rest.

There are problems with this approach for almost any religion. Most religions have claims that can be determined not to be true in their holy book if read literally. That is why merely reading a text is not enough. Also the internal history in holy books can often be shown to be wrong. To truly understand a religion one has to dig a bit deeper. One does not get to start with the assumption that one's own version of God is correct and never test it properly.

 

[Opdrey]

There are problems with this approach for almost any religion. Most religions have claims that can be determined not to be true in their holy book if read literally. That is why merely reading a text is not enough. Also the internal history in holy books can often be shown to be wrong. To truly understand a religion one has to dig a bit deeper. One does not get to start with the assumption that one's own version of God is correct and never test it properly.

Good luck with convincing AV of this approach.

In reality I've read a bunch of great discussions of the BIble's history (Bart Ehrman's stuff and Pelikan's "Whose Bible Is It?" and a couple of books on Biblical archaeology as well as "God's Secretaries" about the writing of the KJV), it's a really fascinating thing to realize that there's so much interesting stylistic analysis of the texts and it starts to make more sense with that sort of context.

The Bible, when analyzed as a book and not an untouchable work of God Almighty, is much more interesting. It certainly helped make more sense of some of it after I'd read the Bible front to back (except the apocrypha). Ehrman's "Lost Christianities" also is fascinating. It's so interesting to see the books that didn't make the fully-human-controlled "cut" to make it into the Bible. Again, when you see it as the work of humans it starts to make so much more sense and have so much more depth to it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Good luck with convincing AV of this approach.

In reality I've read a bunch of great discussions of the BIble's history (Bart Ehrman's stuff and Pelikan's "Whose Bible Is It?" and a couple of books on Biblical archaeology as well as "God's Secretaries" about the writing of the KJV), it's a really fascinating thing to realize that there's so much interesting stylistic analysis of the texts and it starts to make more sense with that sort of context.

The Bible, when analyzed as a book and not an untouchable work of God Almighty, is much more interesting. It certainly helped make more sense of some of it after I'd read the Bible front to back (except the apocrypha). Ehrman's "Lost Christianities" also is fascinating. It's so interesting to see the books that didn't make the fully-human-controlled "cut" to make it into the Bible. Again, when you see it as the work of humans it starts to make so much more sense and have so much more depth to it.

I do not think that AV can be convinced. He does not appear to be able to reason rationally. When one challenges him to support his claims he never does so. He only goes back to his failed standards.

And yes, the Bible has a lot more to offer if one tries to analyze it properly. Trying to turn it into an idol only leads to failed theology.

 

[Astrid]

But it makes for a lot more exciting story if they died for writing the Bible.

Makes the book more truer too.

 

[Astrid]

By definition.



Seems to me that in any given religion that is exactly the proper way to do it. Not that it makes OTHERS happy, but the reader is intended to be happy.



Nope. In fact using information outside of the Bible may lead you to error. You can rely on "revelation" in some religious traditions, so the only tools you have are the Bible and your imagination.

God will do the rest.

JUST using the bible it would be clear that Pi=3.0

And a person might accept the Paul "snake bite" story
as being plausible.

 

[AV1611VET]

JUST using the bible it would be clear that Pi=3.0

Show me.

And a person might accept the Paul "snake bite" story as being plausible.

"Might"?

 

[Kylie]

JUST using the bible it would be clear that Pi=3.0

I've found there's enough wiggle room in those passages, since we don't know if they are talking about the internal or external diameter. Depending on the thickness of the vessel, using the internal diameter for one and the external for the other measurement could work.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I've found there's enough wiggle room in those passages, since we don't know if they are talking about the internal or external diameter. Depending on the thickness of the vessel, using the internal diameter for one and the external for the other measurement could work.

I've always found "the inside diameter" silly. Imagine you had something 45 ft around (~30 cubits). How many folks would it take to hold the rope on the inside to measure it? OTOH, you could get a pretty good measure of the outside with just 2. 3 would be better. But I'd guess you'd need 10 to keep the rope from sagging on the inside.

Humans measuring something the hard way? Nah.

 

[AV1611VET]

Humans measuring something the hard way? Nah.

1 Kings 7:23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

If the molten sea was slightly elliptical, everything fits.

Long Axis = 10
Short Axis = 9.000[whatever]
Circumference = 30

 

[Subduction Zone]

1 Kings 7:23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

If the molten sea was slightly elliptical, everything fits.

Long Axis = 10
Short Axis = 9.000[whatever]
Circumference = 30

Sorry, but that goes against a more accurate translation:

23 He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it.