Is God a deliberate reality, or a fantasy?

[Mickiel]

Indeed, believers and non believers react differently to the question of God. I believe both groups are predestined to be with God, 1 Tim. 4:10 mentions both of these groups;" We trust in the Living God, who is the Savior of ALL men, ( that's the first group, non believers), "Specially of those that believe", ( that's the second group, believers) and these two groups are deliberately saved.

True salvation is deliberate; again we see these two groups in 1 John 2:2, " And he is the propitiation for " Our sins", ( our means believers, that's one group), and NOT " Ours only", but also for the sins of the whole world, ( that's the second group who's sins are covered, unbelievers).

So my belief and views are not Christian, and I am being deliberately clear on that; and will give my views on why I think God is real, and he is a deliberate being.

 

[dDave]

People seem to find it difficult to be impartial, even when it's a critical part of what they do. The scientific process doesn't include the step "Ignore any concepts similar in nature or character to religious ideas". If facts just happen to point to something that may have similarities to a religious concept, it doesn't mean that this interpretation of the facts should be outright rejected. I understand and appreciate that scientific pursuit should never be tainted by religious dogma or personally held beliefs, but at the same time, science should not be tainted by a reverse dogma and reverse beliefs. I've heard the idea of a creator be described as a "magical" concept because of the lack of tangible proof, but how tangible are purely theoretical dimensions, alien computer programs, infinite universes, and singularity theories that defy all laws of physics? All of which I've heard emerge from the scientific community with little to no supporting evidence. "Scientific" magic is okay though, I guess. The beginning of wisdom is the statement "I don't know", but in the scientific community it seems to be "I don't know, but I do know anything God-like is wrong."


I didn't originally set out to find God, I set out to find the truth about, as Monty Python might have put it, life, the universe, and everything. I didn't try to squeeze the concept of God into anything along the way. I wasn't even a believer in religion when I started. There just came a point though when too many things were pointing in the same direction and I would be remiss to ignore it. I am a firm believer in Occam's razor. I think my observations and conclusions are quite logical and reasonable, but if someone disagrees, then I welcome an alternative point of view. By all means, share.



- Cham

Is science inherently correct? Will it always eventually yield the correct conclusion? What about things that cannot be proven or disproven via science?

One issue I've seen pop up time and time again is the idea that disproving science automatically points to God. No... all you've done is prove that a piece of science is incorrect. There's also the idea that science disproves God, also incorrect.

Science is ultimately unable to prove or disprove the existence of God. Science, by its very definition, does not allow for supernatural occurrences. You may be able to verify historical accuracy of parts of the Bible or even carbon date a rock at 5 billion years old, that does nothing one way or the other to prove or disprove the existence of God.

 

[Mickiel]

I think science can most definitely prove God; I once did a thread on it;

http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=25279

It got to be pretty long too. Over 1,000 replies and over 34,000 views.

 

[dDave]

I think science can most definitely prove God; I once did a thread on it;

http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=25279

It got to be pretty long too. Over 1,000 replies and over 34,000 views.

But would you not agree that God himself cannot be tested? By his very nature he cannot be tested and the test certainly could not be repeated and the results verified.

 

[Mickiel]

I disagree, God can be tested and proven. In fact in Malachi 3:10 he kind of ask to be proven, and the scriptures do state that we should prove all things, and I think God certainly is included in all things. I disagree with the believers who have stated for years that God cannot be proven, when he himself said to prove him; try him, or test him. But that is common in Christianity, they teach one thing, and the bible teaches another.

It is biblical to " Try the Spirit by the Spirit", which means to test! And God is a Spirit that can be tested by the Spirit! But again, this is not Christian teaching and understanding; so when I communicate with Christians, I understand that they see things, how they see it. The bible is full of the verified tests concerning God. The word of God teaches that the things of nature, animals, even humans are reflections of some things in heaven. And those things can reveal heavenly things. Prove heavenly things; and prove God.

But the person has to be able to see and understand this; or its just water flowing down the drain. In 1 John 4:1, " Try the Spirits", means test them; and God is a Spirit, and a Spirit can be tested!

 

[dDave]

That's all good and I actually agree with you. That being said, that isn't scientific (I should have used this word much more clearly earlier). Science requires the application of the scientific method.

I'm not saying we can't know God exists, we can certainly know through means outside of science. The real problem we face with so many people is that science seems to be the only truth they know and trust.

 

[Mickiel]

It is scientific to look at how the science of animal behavior and the science of biology, the science of mathematics, the science of biblical Archaeology, the science of Anthropic Principles, the science of Paleontology, of Irreducible Complexity, of Life Spans, of Proteins, the science of DNA and Biogenesis, all these methods can be used to prove God; its not complicated, but it can be complicated, because the simple science can be used, and the complicated science can be used.

BUT_-

If one is blind to science being used to prove God, then to them, no such method exist. Listen, if science is truth, and a search for truth; then what is God? Now think with me here; God is truth, if science is a search for truth, explain to me why it cannot lead to God? If science is truth, and God is truth, its impossible for them not to be compatible.

You have to start thinking outside of the box. And you can, if you dare to think different.

 

[The_Chameleon]

Indeed, believers and non believers react differently to the question of God. I believe both groups are predestined to be with God, 1 Tim. 4:10 mentions both of these groups;" We trust in the Living God, who is the Savior of ALL men, ( that's the first group, non believers), "Specially of those that believe", ( that's the second group, believers) and these two groups are deliberately saved.

That's a fascinating little bit of scripture I must say. It has always seemed a bit... well... incongruent to me to think that God is going to condemn good people to eternal damnation if they don't believe in him, but at the same time, it makes sense to me that those who refuse the gift of grace through perfect sacrifice have no secondary option. I mean, a perfect gift is the best there is, you can't give more than that. I suspect however, and only suspect, that things will be made clearer to non-believers when they pass from this Earth, and they will be able to make an informed decision, free of the biases of the Earthly realm. I don't know if this suspicion is Biblically supported or refuted. I doubt that God really wants anyone to spend an eternity of suffering in hell, and I know with God, all things are possible. However, I don't think, even for God, that all things are easy.


Do you know of any other scripture that refers to salvation of both all men, and believers, distinctly? I have a moderate knowledge of Scripture, but somehow this verse slipped under my radar. And it shouldn't have given that it appears to fly in the face of conventional Christian interpretation.



- Cham

____________________

The function of science to a believer is different than it is for a non-believer. Science is the study of God's creation, and understanding, even in our limited ways, the wisdom of His design and engineering, gives us (believers) a greater appreciation for His glory, while providing us with the means to solve problems and be more productive. For the unbeliever however, science serves the function of attempting to prove that the Universe is the product of natural (mindless) processes, in otherwords, to prove that there is no Creator, as well as the function of developing marketable technologies for profit. But science cannot prove God, for God has chosen to be seen by faith alone. Science can imply divinity, but doesn't prove it.


- Cham

 

[Mickiel]

Well here are 100 scriptures you can start with, and I have more if you want to see them;

http://www.tentmaker.org/books/ScripturalProofs.html

 

[The_Chameleon]

For comparison, please address Mat 5:20

“For I say to you that unless your arighteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven."

- Cham