Posted by: Nito | November 9, 2013

Edge Effects

Heron:

“Science studies phenomena and everything outside of time and space is unreachable to science. God, by definition is outside of time and space; God is the Noumenon which creates phenomena.”

“”In the absence of reliable evidence that there is anything outside time, space and matter/energy, it is only an imaginary assumption by ignorant humans that there is a god.””

What if scientists do have access and reliable evidence there is something outside common perception of space and time yet religion is having hard time to accept it for fears that religion might need major upgrade again. (Remember our Earth in the centre of the universe story).

Nito:

Religion:
– the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods (Oxford dictionary).

Faith:
– complete trust or confidence in someone or something (Oxford dictionary).

Religion and Faith are two different things. Religious people focus on the Power and what they could get from God, while faith-filled people focus on the Love and what they could give to God. Religious people say they love God, but they don’t show it; faithful people show their love for God, but they don’t say it.

So, what kind of an “upgrade” are you talking about, and what is the new scientific evidence and why would it create a problem for Faith and the Bible? In other words, Bible was not rewritten after science discovered that earth is round and circles around the sun.

Heron:

I believe we are trying to gain some knowledge from religion and faith here.
It was a good idea of yours to look into Oxford dictionary to avoid misunderstanding. Therefore, knowledge is “facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education ……. Philosophy true, justified belief; certain understanding, as opposed to opinion”

The upgrade I am talking about is different interpretation of the Bible as you suggested in some part, for example, regarding different duration of God’s day and Earth’s day.
There is a real possibility that extensive reinterpretation of the Bible would render some or to many of the original text “invisible” and that is the problem for religion and faith based on Bible!
As for Earth not in the centre of the universe, church says it is compatible with the Bible. (perhaps some reinterpretation took place)

I do not think new science is needed for a start, existing well proven part would suffice for quality discussion, but funny, science might need some reinterpretation as well making the unpleasant problems for scientists also.

Finally, who is going to love us if we continue to search for knowledge causing problems in the process? Anyone to help with some diplomacy here?

Nito:

Basically, you are talking about upgrades to the theology, which is “the study of the nature of God and religious belief”. I agree that theology changes as people grow in knowledge and their relationship with God. However, Bible stays the same and it is also used for validating any new theology.

If I would want to describe the Bible with one scientific word, it would be the word “axiom“; “a statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true”.

I’m not sure if diplomacy could apply here. Sincere investigation requires digging deep without discarding any evidence. There are increasing reports of miracles happening around the world, like this one.

The role of science in my mind is to stop being biased towards atheism and sincerely investigate the “God does exist” premise.

For example, if matter creates thoughts and emotions, which part of this lady’s body worked out her healing? What about thousands of other cases, or people being raised from the dead (which you can find reports of if you are diligent enough)? Dead matter stays dead, unless God resurrects it.

I say you need to take a side. You need to pursue truth no matter what will other people say. And truth will lead you to God.

Heron:

“The role of science in my mind is to stop being biased towards atheism and sincerely investigate the “God does exist” premise.”

I think I am ready to do that and I am looking for an open minded believer that is ready to sincerely investigate the “God does not exist” premise.

Are you ready ??

Nito:

Sure. Let’s open a new page for this discussion and continue to comment on that page (i.e. this one).

Father God, bless this discussion so that it is made profitable to all that choose to participate or read. Give us the eyes that see and ears that hear, in the name of Jesus.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Well ok, for a start, I would like to discuss the meaning of “sincerely investigate” in order to adopt equivalent term scientists use under name “scientific method”. Yes it is a crucial test whether scientist and believer are ready for quality discussion.
    Term “scientific method” is often attacked in religious based discussions as a method that is not usable in the religious world because it works within material domain and cannot deal with spiritual world. It is a first serious misunderstanding, if left unresolved definitely makes any further discussion meaningless.
    Let us start with Oxford dictionary which defines “scientific method” as follows: ” systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses” ; or you can look at Wikipedia : “scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge………..

    I do not see a word about any suggestions nor limitations on what the subject of observation is or should be. Particularly, “material experiments” are not mentioned in either definition. No matter how deep you ponder into meaning of the “scientific method” you will find that it only describes a method and do not suggest or dictate in any way what is the subject of research. Of course you can put limitation in to definition, but please change its name also to avoid confusion!
    It is very incorrect and somehow unfair to claim that philosopher can investigate something that physicist cannot. Of course they both can, and should do it by observation which is systematic using comparison with known “things” (measurement), to experiment regardless it involves material things that have mass and inertia or EM waves that do not or be it “only” a thought experiments that physicists utilize so much. And it is called “scientific method” and you are welcome to attribute to it ” sincere investigation” as it should be that way.
    If we do not embrace these principles we would not gain knowledge but simply exchange opinions and nothing more, just like Oxford dictionary says about knowledge: “certain understanding, as opposed to opinion “………
    It is very important to agree on this so we can call it later for help if needed!
    Any suggestions before we proceed? (perhaps noumenon is something to be addressed too?)

    • The first definition of “systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses” might be applicable to theology as well. You will note that I deliberately do not talk about religion, because I agree with others, you cannot apply “scientific method” to it. The only proper “method of research” that is applicable in the domain of religion is “faith” (definition of which is already given at the top of this page).

      The second definition of the “scientific method’ does mention phenomena, which is plural of phenomenon, which Oxford dictionary defines as “a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen, especially one whose cause or explanation is in question”. Such definition is not applicable to our discussion, because of the construct “observed to exist”. We will discuss “things” that existed before any thoughts, EM waves or physical matter was created. The problem presented here is that we aren’t able to “observe that something exists” unless we have thoughts to work with.

      If there is a realm where our thoughts cannot penetrate (i.e. do not exist), and I will show you that there is such a place, knowledge (i.e. “certain understanding, as opposed to opinion“) cannot form. Hence certain understanding of such realm is impossible and we are left with speculation and opinion. God said that His thoughts are higher than ours (see Isaiah 55:9); in other words, He is “unapproachable” and “unreachable” to our thoughts.

      Hence I see God as the “Noumenon” (with capital ‘N’ and with ‘the’ placed in front), where Oxford dictionary defines “noumenon” as “a thing as it is in itself, as distinct from a thing as it is knowable by the senses through phenomenal attributes”. You will note that this definition rules out sensory perception and studying phenomenal attributes.

      So, to continue successfully, I would suggest that you:

      1) propose how we would “observe”, “measure” and “experiment” the Noumenon, for which by definition we cannot use sensory input or study its phenomenal attributes and

      2) propose how we would perform “thought experiments” about the “substance” called God, where our thoughts cannot reach it.

  2. “The only proper “method of research” that is applicable in the domain of religion is “faith””
    I was not precise enough on that, you are absolutely right about it and also as you are that scientific method might be applicable to theology (I think it should).
    As of our biological sensory system and mental capabilities I only partially agree, in fact mostly disagree. It seems that philosophy has paradoxes like quantum mechanics does. Scientists opted for multiple interpretations of the inconsistent theory and that is an error I would not like to repeat here. Let us try to correct errors before they multiply themselves.
    You are proposing that some information-realm whatever it is, is inaccessible to our thoughts, and yet you are capable of writing about it so easily. Let us be consistent about what we can or cannot do. You said: “Hence certain understanding of such realm is impossible and we are left with speculation and opinion.”
    If we can speculate about something and have an opinion about it than we most certainly could form thoughts about it in the first place, therefore your claim:
    “…………. there is a realm where our thoughts cannot penetrate (i.e. do not exist),…………”
    does not hold in a given context, and it is my answer to your second question.
    I hope you do not mind proving you wrong on this one otherwise nothing would be left to talk about and that would be a sad thing. Agree?
    Furthermore, since Immanuel Kant coined definition of noumenon and faith has added capital N a lot has changed how science uses our senses in order to acquire data for research. The “magic” lays in the tools which scientists designed specifically to expand what our biological sensory system can receive and process. I am not talking only about quantity of information fed to our biological sensory system but also about acquiring and interpretation of data previously completely inaccessible and unknown to our sensory system. As far as understanding of such data is concerned they were-are sometimes so mind boggling data that we needed to seriously rethink about almost everything we used to think we know. So with sensory upgrade came mind upgrade as an inevitable consequence. Science had a few hundred years from Immanuel Kant and more than a thousand years from Bible for the upgrade, a formidable time. You have right to believe that God would not allow errors to creep into Bible as I have right, I hope, to believe that God did not forget to read some 290 million books after the Bible (I suppose He is the only one who can read them all) or more than half a million scientific papers published in the science archive called “arXiv” . (I like to call that corpus a New Bible)
    To conclude; contrary to your claim that some data is inaccessible to our sensory system I think we have ability to reach “more than we asked for” and processing it is the beauty of our existence.
    After all, according to Yuga “calendar” we better start working “yesterday” to help our future generations to be ready when Satya Yuga comes, when Father and children made on His image will finally live together therefore our task to reach “unreachable” has come to an end.

    • “You are proposing that some information-realm whatever it is, is inaccessible to our thoughts, and yet you are capable of writing about it so easily.” Actually, I could write “around” it, but not really about it. Here is what I think might be a good analogy: If you would be able to systematically observe, measure and experiment with ‘whatever’ was before Big Bang, you would be able to observe, measure and experiment with God.

      I agree that you can postulate opinion about what was before the Big Bang and then observe, measure and experiment on the effects of the Big Bang. This would give you a piece of information which would in turn prove or disprove the opinion you started with, but I hope you will agree, all these proven opinions bundled into a body of “knowledge” called arXiv cannot be called ‘certain’ understanding. They collectively could be called ‘best’ understanding so far, with a note that this understanding may and probably would change as science continues to exist.

      You mentioned multiple interpretations in the field of quantum mechanics, which indicates that ‘certain’ understanding does not exist there. I think we should be able to agree that science has problems with things on a very small scale as well with the things on a very large scale. Claiming that it ‘certainly’ understands everything that goes on in those realms would be an error.

      I also wouldn’t like us to start with bold proclamations that science has (at this point in time) all the tools required for our discussion, because it doesn’t even have the tools to explore everything within the creation. For example, what is “dark matter” and how would you go about directly observing it, measuring it and experimenting with it? You might think of an indirect method to do this, but would you be able to use ‘something’ that will give you an ability to “handle” this mysterious substance directly?

      This word “directly” was in my mind when I wrote about God being “unapproachable” and “unreachable” to our thoughts. Nevertheless, I think it will help us to step back and define the problem area we would research, before actually agreeing on the research tools. Here is the “hypothesis” that I would like us to discuss on this page:

      God existed before the creation (i.e. the universe) and He caused it to happen. All matter within the creation (visible and invisible) was caused by the primordial vibration and is sustained by the same. The medium (“substance”) that vibrates is God, as He is using Himself as the building material for everything else inside the universe.

  3. Well, when we started this discussion I was aware that religion is based on faith and that evidence whether it is justified is not needed. Later, you claimed that subject of your faith is not accessible to our thoughts. I disagreed, but if it works for you I can live with that despite it does not work for me . Then I asked you how we shall discuss something that is inaccessible to your thoughts. You said you can write “around” it, but not really about it. Hmm, now I see it does not work for you either!
    Does it work for science??
    You said:
    “………..all these proven opinions bundled into a body of “knowledge” called arXiv cannot be called ‘certain’ understanding. They collectively could be called ‘best’ understanding so far………..”
    In Oxford dictionary “proven” is defined as: “to demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument” , and yet you claim that proven opinions cannot be called certain understanding therefore knowledge.
    In science there are well proven theories that became knowledge and unproven theories still under investigation that can compete for the “best understanding so far” category.
    I am not surprised you missed the difference because it is based on proven vs. unproven concept that faith is unaware of because it does not need it. Therefore” writing “around” it, but not really about it” also does not work for science.
    To conclude, discussion about anything that is unreachable to thoughts is not possible according to definitions in all dictionaries, therefore I must say that we are not ready for this discussion yet.

    • We also started the discussion with you saying “science might need some reinterpretation as well making the unpleasant problems for scientists also.” Now, when I’ve pointed out that there is phenomena out there (e.g. “dark matter”) that science cannot measure DIRECTLY and there are some conditions that science will never be able to recreate (e.g. conditions before the Big Bang) you are still bold enough to claim that “proven” theories constitute certain understanding.

      Even though they are “proven”, are you certain that they are true in the absolute sense? In other words, I grant you that such theories are true relative to our current understanding of the universe, but could you guarantee that they would stay RELEVANT in the long run?

      It’s not about “missing the difference” if something is proven or not, it’s about realising that science does NOT have ALL of the tools required to research ALL of the phenomena, let alone what’s behind it and what has caused it.

      Obviously (on this page) we are talking about certain areas of phenomena (which I’ve referred to previously as “things on a very small scale as well with the things on a very large scale.”) that are currently covered by quantum physics and cosmology. To claim that science has certain understanding in these areas contradicts with your previous statement (i.e. in the 1st paragraph above). Science simply doesn’t have the knowledge of these areas but more or less good guesses.

      When I say “I could write “around” it, but not really about it” I’m expressing my awe at God and His handiwork called creation/universe. I’m also stating the fact that there is no way I could ever DIRECTLY measure and experiment on ALL things within creation (i.e. “things on a very small scale as well with the things on a very large scale.”).

      So, to counteract this problem and to try to stay relevant science is using thought experiments. It looks like a useful tool, but if you are using guesses to setup the environment and initial conditions of the experiment are you saying to me that these though experiments will create certain understanding? Of what? Of your initial guesses about something you call “information-realm”? Does certain understanding of a guess form knowledge? Even if results fit with other theories, is that a guarantee that all these theories would stay relevant in the long run? Science obviously doesn’t hesitate to call this knowledge, even though it is often discarded and replaced with better understanding as time goes on.

      On the other hand, I grant you that you could form your initial conditions and environment (of thought experiments) by using the Bible (i.e. the one that God gave us), which would be the best thing you could do, and by doing so you could form some theories and they could fit with the rest of the “proven” scientific theories, but do you honestly think that by doing so you would form CERTAIN UNDERSTANDING about what is outside of the creation; how God looks like, how big is He, how heavy is He, how tasty is He etc? No, you wouldn’t. Bible does contain some information about God (that which He chose to reveal to us), but not everything, so we really cannot possibly form complete and certain understanding of God, hence He is “unapproachable” and “unreachable” to our thoughts.

      So, my friend, I would like you to realize that scientific method and thought experiments have their limitations as described above, however, we could endeavour to use Bible to form thought experiments and check if the results of those align with any other scientific theories.

      • You are still struggling with proven vs. unproven concept.
        It is not about faith, or something you like or dislike because it does not justify your beliefs or suit you in any way.
        Of course I am bold enough to claim that proven theories are knowledge and others under investigation are only candidates to become proven or disproven and my claim holds if you recognize the difference between the two.
        If you do not, than you can use the dark matter as a wrong argument to talk against proven theories because dark matter is nor proven nor disproven yet. There are experiments underway to clear this out. It is as simple as that. If existing experiments fail, there will be new ones. If someone come up with a better theory there will be another theory waiting for approval and all that as long as it take to prove or refute dark matter. Nobody in science is hiding behind the “inaccessible to thoughts” excuse. Whether you like it or not probing universe before big bang is already under discussion and experimentation regardless of your “bold” claims “..and there are some conditions that science will never be able to recreate….”. You are making to many comments on various scientific research projects you do not understand and-or are not informed well. You cannot interpret scientific claims or researches wrong and build your criticism on that.
        Nobody will take that seriously and that is exactly what is happening between science and religion.
        You can interpret Bible as it suits you, but you cannot do the same with science.
        I tried to engage in this discussion in order to straight it up a little, but you refuse to do that seriously. I was, and still am committed to explore what world religions (not only Bible) have to say about origins of the world we live in, and compare it with proven science (existing knowledge) as well as unproven theories (those that scientists only believe to be true). Of course I do not claim I understand all the science fully (nobody do), but I opted for the next best thing; respect and learn from others that know about certain areas more than I do and dig very deep where I decide to engage directly. You opted to put all your faith in Bible, but what about your knowledge. Will you continue to misunderstand science or you will ask for help from those who know more than you do, just like I did, or you think you know it all and that Bible is all you need. You sound like your “knowledge” came from Bible which would mean we should rename true believer to scientist or vice versa. (I hope not!)
        Will you continue to confuse faith with knowledge ignoring concept of justification and proof?
        It is on you to decide.

  4. You speak in contradictions. First you say “It is not about faith, or something you like or dislike…” and then “If existing experiments fail, there will be new ones.” expressing your faith in scientifism. “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1). You are using as evidence (in this discussion) experiments not yet seen and theories not yet even postulated! Please refrain from doing that, because faith is my tool not yours.

    I want to see links to peer reviewed articles for every claim you make, so please redo your previous post with proper citations. I want you to cite the EXISTING scientific “knowledge”, not something that might or might not happen in the future.

    And please address my arguments directly. If I make a claim, based on the logic I’ve laid out earlier, that dark matter cannot be DIRECTLY measured, then you have to address that claim and prove it or disprove it. At the moment you are making vague comments and a nonchalant “You are making to many comments on various scientific research projects you do not understand and-or are not informed well.” I do not need you to lecture me on my thinking abilities, but to do your job, which is to give me citations, links and explanations of something that is “proven” and that will properly address my claims. Otherwise, you aren’t using the scientific method you so dearly promote. I’m also not interested in opinions of other people (i.e. that you’ve read in books or blogs) but on quoted and verified results of scientific research.

    The difference between me using faith in God, the Creator, and you using faith in scientifism is enormous. “Faith is the substance of things hoped for” so when I use faith in the Creator of the universe, He is (by definition) well capable of creating something out of nothing, or doing the “impossible” to satisfy my hope. Hence, faith is the “substance” out of which things are made. Or in other words, what we have faith for, we ask God to “pull” down from the invisible realm of thoughts and energy and give it a material shape and form so it becomes true to our senses as well.

    As scientifism believes in evolution (i.e. no Creator), accidental order (which is an oxymoron in itself), there is no external “agency” that could help “pull” things down from the invisible into the visible. Scintifists themselves cannot create new stuff out of nothing, so as there is none else that could do this for them, faith is not a tool that scientifists could use. Hence, it’s completely clear why faith doesn’t make sense to them. Also, expressing faith in scientifism is an idolatry and gives raise to false hope.

    It seems that you are projecting onto me the problems you have with your tools. I said I will use the Bible and it will be sufficient for this discussion and you use scientific evidence but not scientifism.

    In regards to other religions, I must apologise if my website misled you into thinking that I promote all religions as equal. I do not. I started this website when I was still involved with new age, but since then I’ve realised the power of Jesus and completeness of God’s will for the humanity through Christianity. I still believe that all religions point to the same God, but they do NOT convey the same revelation about Him.

    As a Christian I do not have to earn God’s love as He loves me already and He proved it by sending His son Jesus to die for my sins. I don’t have to spend years of penance, breathing in and out, performing redeeming activity to atone for my sins as Jesus’ blood paid for that already (I do have to mediate on God’s word and spread His kingdom on earth because it does not just benefit me but also everybody else). I do not have to reincarnate as a worn in the “next life”, because Jesus saved me from the reincarnation cycle and thus gave me the life eternal. I don’t have to kill anyone in order to please God, because He loves everybody and wants them changed (by their own free will) and not killed. I don’t need to wait for the Messiah to come, because He (Jesus) has come already and has paved the way for me.

    • You criticized:
      “You speak in contradictions. First you say “It is not about faith, or something you like or dislike…” and then “If existing experiments fail, there will be new ones.” expressing your faith in scientifism.
      The truth is just the opposite. Remember what faith is: ” complete trust or confidence in someone or something………… strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof”.
      I mentioned numerous experiments and alternative theories for the reason I DO NOT have faith in any of them and that is the reason I am seeking for a proof. My approach is exact opposite to “complete trust” or “spiritual conviction”. You misunderstood me completely.
      Speaking of contradictions, what about this one you cited from Bible “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” Hmm, faith as evidence… ???
      You say to me:
      “You are using as evidence (in this discussion) experiments not yet seen and theories not yet even postulated!…..
      You are forcing me to repeat I already said; inform yourself learn about science learn from others that know about certain things more than you do. I am not lecturing you but it seems you do not accept lectures from anyone. “Things not yet seen” for you can become known to you if you learn about them. If you engage in discussion with a scientist you must prepare for it. It is called education.
      You asked for citation. I will give you one which best describes your problem with science.
      It is from the book “The Grand Design – Hawking, Mlodinow”;
      “Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics.”
      What Hawking meant is that your citations from Bible are not up to two thousand years of evolution of human thought. Of course you will say he is wrong but your arguments to back your claim would be insignificant in comparison with Hawkings.
      You asked me to address your “arguments” directly but how you expect me to do so while you write “around it but not really about it”. Here is your example of your reasoning, or lack of it, which I will use to show you how your discussion, at this stage, with any scientist is pointless.
      You provided video showing very ill woman in wheelchair that managed to walk a few minutes and than collapses. For a mainstream medicine, person that collapses after a few minutes of forced walk, is very ill and in this particular case it is tragic and sad because there is no known cure for her, yet for you it is an act of “healing”, a miracle and you even “see” work of God in it. ( not to mention frauds usually associated with such kind of shows ) This is rather unpleasant example of how we see “things” differently. I gave you arguments for my view, you gave me your arguments for your view. Since both set of arguments are not accepted here, mutual conclusion is not possible. To talk further without understanding does not make sense. You opted for old Bible, I opted for a new “Bible”. The difference is 2000 years of evolution!

      • Links to and citations of verified results of scientific research please.

        So far you haven’t presented me with any strong argument against my claims. I don’t count ad hominem (i.e. argument against man) as a proper argument.

    • If you google “dark matter” you will get more than 250 million results. Bible returned zero results. Since you care only about what is written in Bible we got nothing left to discuss. For those who really want to learn something about “dark matter” Wikipedia is a good place to start.

      You said:

      “As a Christian I do not have to earn God’s love as He loves me already and He proved it by sending His son Jesus to die for my sins. I don’t have to spend years of penance, breathing in and out, performing redeeming activity to atone for my sins as Jesus’ blood paid for that already (I do have to mediate on God’s word and spread His kingdom on earth because it does not just benefit me but also everybody else). I do not have to reincarnate as a worn in the “next life”, because Jesus saved me from the reincarnation cycle and thus gave me the life eternal.”

      My definition of love does not involve anyone’s son to die for my sins. I do not expect reward for my sins in the form of eternal life. What kind of God it is, what kind of love it is??

      • Everybody has their own definition of love. Murderers love to kill, thieves love to steal, prideful people love to boast about their own understanding…

        “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.’

        “Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.” (1 Corinthians 1:18-25).

        In this quote apostle Paul explains your dilemma. Like ancient Greeks, contemporary scientifists seek wisdom. Nothing wrong with that, however they all seem to have these red tainted glasses, called “their own understanding.” Through those they peek into the world albeit they see it in red color only. They never take these glasses off, not even in their sleep. So, their dreams are red-colored as well. Naturally, over the years, they’ve developed their thinking and understanding around this red-shifted information they bathe in, and they scoff at anyone who doesn’t see as red as they do. Not much different to the religionists who wear the blue glasses.

        Paul explains that before God decided to offer salvation to the world through the death of His Son, He did offer it salvation through wisdom. Even though it looks foolish that God would kill His own Son (when He has so many other options), we are reminded that “foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.” Salvation through wisdom is knowing that we are just “strangers and pilgrims on the earth” (Hebrews 11:13) and that we come from the spiritual world, live here for a while and then go back to the same. Now, not everyone goes to the same place after they die nor they always return to the same place they came from.

        Even in Bhagavad Gita Krishna advises Arjuna that “The votaries of the lesser Powers go to them; the devotees of spirits go to them; they who worship the Powers of Darkness, to such Powers shell they go; and so, too, those who worship Me shall come unto Me” (Bhagavad Gita 9:25).

        So, you see, in the past there was no mystery about how we should live. Everybody in the world was religious. They knew that if they live and serve God / gods they will return to Him / them. From this time distance we can conclude that the only confusion was about which God / gods they should serve. Even Greeks, who had a pantheon of gods to choose from, didn’t forget to raise an altar to the “Unknown God” (see Acts 17:16-34) So, everyone in the world understood that the Power(s) they serve while here on earth will be their host(s) in the afterlife. That is the gist of the salvation through wisdom.

        The only people in the history of mankind that did not embrace this wisdom were communists and scientifists. This defies logic as the only true position that any unbelieving scientist could possibly have is to be an agnostic (i.e. admit that they do not know if God is real or not; if He exists or not). Because, regardless of what the lead trumpets of scientifism are saying, it (scientifism) hasn’t yet proved that God does not exist, so atheism is just another false religion, using the principle of faith to spread itself around. However, because it doesn’t worship the one true God, but worships “nothing” or darkness, it worships the devil. Because, if you do not seek Love (i.e. God) while living, why do you think you will be hosted by It when you die? “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. He who does not love does not know God, for God is love” (1 John 4:7-8). Those who reject God will be embraced by the devil. It’s a no-brainer that he will be their host in the afterlife.

        So, like Greeks who regarded as foolishness the possibility that Almighty would sacrifice His own Son, while He has all the power in the world to fix and change things as He wants, you also wonder about it. Nevertheless, Bible is clear that God did this to baffle the wise and show us, at the same time, that He would do anything for our own sake. That’s how much He loves us. “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).

        If you believe in atheism you are religious (contrary to you own understanding) because you are following one of the false religions. But be warned, atheism will usher you into the “nothingness”, the realm of darkness, which is the domain of the devil.

        PS: You also failed to use the scientific method that you so much propagate because you have not provided any specific scientific argument (in the form of links and citations of verified results of scientific research) against my arguments. Nevertheless, may the Lord keep you and bless you in your further research. Goodbye and fare well my friend.

      • “If you believe in atheism you are religious (contrary to you own understanding) because you are following one of the false religions. But be warned, atheism will usher you into the “nothingness”, the realm of darkness, which is the domain of the devil.”

        You have difficulties to comprehend that there are people different than you are. If you believe in something without evidence it is your choice and your faith. Try to accept that others might have different choices like not believing without evidence. It is utterly delusional to claim that those others “believe in not believing”. You either believe or not, some of us require evidence to believe others do not, it is that simple. And my opinion about unjustified belief is also simple, the same as Dawkins’
        “I don’t think faith is positive, because faith means belief without evidence, and you shouldn’t believe anything without evidence. [“The Daily Show” 24 Sept 2013]” ― Richard Dawkins
        You are so much into your fictional world that you are talking about “realm of darkness and domain of the devil” so seriously that makes anyone reading your words wonder what went wrong here. It seems I was right telling you that you are ignoring some 2000 years of human development.
        There is no specific or any scientific work to fit into your fiction. Scientific method does not have sense in a fictional world where anything is possible. I cannot but fail to engage science under such circumstances.
        Just to remind you about importance and seriousness of science in a real world:
        “Gravity is not a version of the truth. It is the truth. Anyone who doubts it is invited to jump out a tenth-storey window.” ― Richard Dawkins

  5. On this youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/user/JohnMellorMinistries/videos you will find hundreds of documented miracles and people’s testimonies about how Jesus healed them. This is more than enough evidence for those who want to do thinking and research for themselves.

    And yet, scientifists like Richard Dawkins, claim that there is no evidence. Talking about having eyes and not seeing or having ears but not hearing. Such people indeed choose to “believe in not believing” and are followers of the false religion of atheism.

    Here is another testimony, from a former atheist and college professor, now Pastor Howard Storm (http://www.howardstorm.com/). He describes how he died and was led into the realm of darkness where he was tormented by the inhabitants of hell. But when he called upon Jesus, the Light came and Jesus took him out and saved him. He was sent back to earth to testify and help others. Here is an interview where he talks about his experience:

    In regards to the scientific method, I’m glad that you also admit that it cannot apply to the domain of research we started talking about. However, when you say a particular domain of research is “fictional” I expect you to give specific scientific evidence to back your claims. Otherwise, it just looks as a bunch of ad hominem to me, sometimes even unrelated to the thread we are discussing. I do respect your opinion, but don’t expect me to comment on such stuff.

    • You are playing with words again. You changed my words and made comments on your construct and that is the reason it looks, as you say “sometimes even unrelated to the thread we are discussing”.
      What you changed as it suits you, looks like this:
      “In regards to the scientific method, I’m glad that you also admit that it cannot apply to the domain of research we started talking about. ”
      Well, I did not say that, I said:
      “Scientific method does not have sense in a FICTIONAL world where anything is possible…. ”
      Yes I regard your domain of “research” as fiction, but you do not and it is disagreement, the opposite of what you are trying to suggest. Your problem is that you are doing the same thing with a Bible. Sometimes one God’s day is 13 billion years and sometimes it is less than a billion or just millions. It is a “small” adjustment of yours in order to fit 6 days creation story into science. You can play with words in fantasy world because there are no consequences such as playing with gravity in a real world I mentioned before. From this, it is easy to see the seriousness of the evidence in science compared to fun-evidence in the fantasy world.
      You said:
      “However, when you say a particular domain of research is “fictional” I expect you to give specific scientific evidence to back your claims.”
      You are asking me for evidence to disapprove your fiction. Well, science does not work that way.
      You definitely cannot make up something and say it is true until someone disapproves it. It would be a waste of time because anyone would be invited to propose and claim anything, producing futile work for others checking out all kinds of garbage. You wont make many “friends” among scientists that way. You must do your homework by yourself or make a really good case to attract someone to join and help. So far Bible failed to attract anyone to research flat earth in the centre of the universe all created in a few days.
      For example, Newton proved his equation of gravity is true in a given context. Gravity is among most mysterious forces of nature yet anybody can prove it to exists just like Newton did. On the other side there are numerous gods in numerous religions and nobody can prove any of these gods to exist, leaving you with options to believe without evidence to have faith or to move on and continue exploration.
      Of course you are welcome to change that, all you have to do is to show how anyone can see that God exists. It should be an easy task because god is omnipresent just as gravity is. Newton succeeded but you and many others failed. Ask yourself why.
      You said:
      “On this youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/user/JohnMellorMinistries/videos you will find hundreds of documented miracles and people’s testimonies about how Jesus healed them.”
      In the real world people are cured in hospitals to the abilities of modern medicine. When modern medicine cannot help, it is understandable that some find comfort in hope for miracles, but it is regrettable that some sell such hopes for money or present their delusions to naive audience in order to gain publicity as Pastor Storm does. Certainly, experts like Richard Dawkins do not regard such delusions as evidence for miracle healings but clear evidence for mental disorder.
      For your record Richard Dawkins is a scientist, scientifist is word that does not exist, it is something you made up again. Check oxford dictionary!

      • To prove that “my” world is fictional you would have to prove that EVERY single documented testimony and miracle on this channel is false or a lie: https://www.youtube.com/user/JohnMellorMinistries/videos

        True scientists can certainly perform this research and independently verify testimonies mentioned above, because science DOES work that way. Only scientifists (i.e. false scientists) will always refuse to do so because it would expose and shred to pieces their little atheistic concepts. Scientific research should never be about making “friends” but about seeking the truth.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: