Does any supernatural god exist?

[Kenny]

My goodness- I certainly do not know this God who you call "Daddy" How could I know since you can not tell me this Gods name or identify the commands of this God in the Bible ? You have negated YHWH .. God of the Israelites .. why do you deny this God ?

Who said I have denied Him? Seems like you are only on terms related to acquaintances but not of relationship

You mention Jesus but speak a falsehood .. The death of Jesus did not buy you a free pass through Judgement friend .. this is the God of deception and of the snake charmers .. the "False Prophets" talked about by Jesus .. a child of the father of the Pharisee's perhaps .. but, no child of "Our Father - hallowed be thy name" speaks like this.

A lot of statements… haven’t seed any support of what you say or, for that matter, when you say what I haven’t said.

Do you believe in the Power of Ha - Satan Brother Ken ? Tester of Souls - Chief God over the Earth .. .. sometimes going by the epithet "Daddy" ?!

the god of this world may be someone’s daddy, but not mine. Mine is the one that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob love and serve.

 

[Ajax]

Unreasonable is a personal opinion of yours. Your deduction is quite biased.


Again, you are extrapolating a segment and reading your own interpretation in it. From the Pew research that you quoted they offered various reasonings and, in my view, not all of the possibilities such as the influence of media and the government teachings in the schools.

It also is segmented in the US - worldwide Christianity continues to grow in numbers. I know you are hopeful but, then again, so am I.


So? Each Gospel has material that the other gospels do not. If the three were written before John, it would be quite “reasonable” ( to use your phrase) that he didn’t need to repeat everything.



I’m sorry, but the miracle of Lazarus isn’t the message of salvation. I don’t use that story every Sunday and, for that matter, maybe not even in the last year.

I think you are pulling at straws.



I know you think you have made a slam-dunk point… but Heaven knows just what point you are making. The message is Jesus and not Lazarus.

My opinion on this discussion is realistic and unbiased. Your replies are extremely biased when the only excuse you can offer is that each gospel has material that others don't. In all synoptic gospels almost all other miracles are mentioned by their respective authors.

For any reasonable person, the fact that the first three gospel writers not only failed to mention the greatest miracle of all time, but also omitted the resurrection of a friend of Jesus, for whom Jesus wept upon hearing of his death, can only imply one thing. They didn't know about it. Otherwise they wouldn't present the "miracle" of healing from ...fever.
Especially when John says in his gospel, that the miracles were written in order to make people believe in Jesus and religion claims that Matthew was one of the disciples. Pathetic!

 

[wellwisher]

If it's the "end result," you should be able to demonstrate it. Again, please show me consciousness, and then explain the process in how the chemical and electrical interaction of information in the the neuron produces it. Assuming the "information" you're speaking of is contained within the nucleus of the neuron, please explain how the "information" interacts with the chemicals and electrical signals producing consciousness.

If you cannot demonstrate consciousness and how it's produced, I'll conclude that your statement is merely a claim based on an assumption.

Consciousness is connected to the second law. The second law is the wild card that gives consciousness it unique properties. The second law states that entropy has to increase, and does so in the direction of increasing complexity. An entropy drive behind consciousness should give us a lifetime of learning potential, and an ever advancing understanding of the world; higher complexity and wisdom of age. Entropy is also a state variable. Our memory should advance in states; memory platforms, that are the foundation for even higher thinking.

Neurons and Entropy

Neurons expend lots of metabolic energy; 90% of their budget, pumping and exchanging two cations; sodium and potassium, segregating these two cations on the opposite sides of the neuron membrane. This pumping and exchange processes store free energy within the membrane. When neurons fire, this free energy is released to lower potential; currents of the brain into the body. The brain is like a fuel cell; glucose, generating cationic and hydrogen proton electricity that powers and controls the body.

What is unique about this neural fuel cell design is the segregation of the cations; potassium builds up inside and sodium builds up outside. The neuron is using lot of energy to essentially lower the entropy of these two cations; lowering their complexity. from a uniform solution. As an exaggerated visual, say we dissolved one teaspoon of sugar and one teaspoon of salt in a glass of water. As we wait and watch, all of a sudden two segregated piles reappear at the bottom of the glass. This should be impossible, since the ions are supposed to stay dissolved in that much water, and stay at uniform complexity, due to the 2nd law. However, this is what the neurons are trying to do, and by doing so, they have lowered the cationic entropy, similar to going back into time, when you had two teaspoons of powder, that you were about to dissolve into the glass.

There is a connection between time and entropy; entropy increases with time and time always increases. The neurons create an entropic potential; like two pure piles of different cations, that creates a zone, that sort of goes back into time, to a point when there was less entropy in the universe. However, the entropy of the rest of the universe has increased in that time. This creates an amplified 2nd law effect; increased entropic potential, even more than it should be. This wild card is the free energy behind consciousness.

A good visual analogy, for the neurons working hard to segregate the cations, is like a fountain that pumps water upward, until it reaches maximum height or potential; membrane potential. It takes lots of energy to creates this entropic potential, since reversing entropy comes with a price. It uses more energy than you can get back, and also adds extra entropy; entropic potential.

Neuron firing is like gravity that causes the water to stop rising, and start to lower its potential, cascading down into larger and larger pools and then into the main pool, for recycle. The exaggerated second law; entropic potential plus 2nd law, adds a wild card where the future of the fountain cascade is not exact.y fixed in time. In many some ways, our consciousness always seems the same; you are you. But there is constant variability due to the exaggerated increase in entropy. The neurons continue to pump to the top of the fountain and recycles the water, while the cascade wild cards wears into the pools and trays; habitual behavior and long term memories.

Since the 2nd laws says that the entropy has to increase over time, this creates a natural learning potential; adds to the complexity of thought. While entropy is a state variable meaning it is connected to platforms or district states of matter; memory. This is connected to the foundations of thought, on which we can build even higher platforms within the fountain. The stock cascading pools are the brain firmware; human nature.

Entropy has a sense of direction. It has to increase. Like climbing a mountain, if we keep going up, even meandering, we will all reach the same summit no matter where we start at the bottom and the paths we take. Energy and enthalpy, which is the more common way to approach life and consciousness, tends to go down hill to lower potential. Most start at neuron firing; gravity, and not the pumping of the fountain. Neurons are designed to pump up hill. This is where 90% of their energy goes. The problem with an energy assumption for consciousness, is that going downhill from the top; neuron firing, will not bring us to the same places. This make consciousness difficult to explain in way where we all can meet in one place. On the other hand, entropy has to increase; elevation. If assume we need to go up; increase entropy, we will all find the same summit within the paradox of consciousness; different but the same.

Extra:

In Greek mythology, Sisyphus was a trickster who receives eternal punishment for cheating death, twice. As his punishment he is forced a roll a large rock up a mountain. Just when he reaches the summit, the rock rolls down. He is destined to try, again.

This describes the entropic life of a neuron. Brain waves come from the neurons that are cursed to have their ball come back down as soon at get the membrane at the top of the free energy hill. Neuron then roll the ball back up the hill, again and again. By cheating death, Sisyphus got more time to live. This also describes the neuron. It is making two piles of cations, from a solution, that should have been the end game for those cations. The neurons tries to cheat the inevitable but is curved to always be confounded. Like Sisyphus, as the ball rolls down the mountain, it can appear in a new spot; consciousness and higher complexity. It is an eternal job; always the same but always different.

 

[Sargonski]

Who said I have denied Him? Seems like you are only on terms related to acquaintances but not of relationship

A lot of statements… haven’t seed any support of what you say or, for that matter, when you say what I haven’t said.

the god of this world may be someone’s daddy, but not mine. Mine is the one that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob love and serve.

It is you who denied the word of National God of the Israelites .. claiming the word of YHWH was not of your God.. that your God would not kill the child for the sin of the Father thus YHWH is not your "Daddy"

Now -- that said .. I agree with your insistence that YHWH is not "The Father" .. not the God of Jesus .. and thus not the God of Abe ... Isaac ands Jacob. This however is not your God either. You do not know the name of the God of Abraham .. nor know this God's commands .. other than this God too recommend "Love" in some instances .. this however not even close to the sum total of this God's commands .. and there are many many Gods who recommend love in some instances..

Who is the God of Jesus Brother Ken ? .. and who is your God .. what is this God's name and/or identity. All you have provided is that this God promotes loving neighbor as self as a general rule .. like a God mentioned in the Bible named Marduk .. God who defeats YHWH in the end.. killing the God of the Israelites .. destroying the place where his name resides ..

 

[wellwisher]

You know what I mean by we, no need to be pedantic.

We do understand things in that way - knowledge that makes everyday things operate, cars, toasters etc. Those are things we have learned about the universe through hypothesis and experimentation, not purely through the use of imagination. We show this is the case by using them, as you are using technology resulting from those same processes by typing messages here on RF. This is quite different from taking fiction to have the same relevance to our experience, e.g. I could try and ‘do an Icarus’ with beeswax and feathers, but I already know if wouldn’t work, not because I have tried it, but because of the progress of science. These are things that make up the nature of experience, and many of them are the same for everyone. If you get into an aeroplane, you can fly from one place to another, if you stick feathers to yourself with wax, you can’t.

What those experiences tell us about the ultimate nature of reality is a different question. There are however very evident experiential differences to be had between the application of science and the application of fictitious ideas.

At one time, all the current laws of science were still in their development stage, inside the minds of a few people, and not yet subject to scientific investigation or proof. Einstein theory of Relativity was not initially common sense, based on the state of the art of his day. Nor could experiments be run that could overcome the bias of traditions. Science of any time is not the state of the art. That is still unfolding.

Science laws come to be, first through the human mind and imagination. Sometimes necessity helps it come to focus. What we learn in school is sanitized and not how it came into reality. It starts with an idea in the imagination that lacks proof.

Where the philosophy of science, sets the line in the sand; sensory reality verification, comes in late. The irony is, the most important tool of science is human consciousness, and that is what we experience from the inside; I think therefore I am. It is not I see therefore I am.

This line in the sand may have occurred in the Atheist mirror world of defining itself what it is not; It is not religion. Religion are more likely to exist in the place called faith in an inner vision. A similar place is common to all innovators, before science can see. This is why so much of the prime artistic expression of humanity is connected to the world's religion; coming from the void, before there is light for seeing. But once it can be seen, computer art just cannot complete, because art from the void has an extra dimension; timeless.

 

[Tomef]

At one time, all the current laws of science were still in their development stage, inside the minds of a few people, and not yet subject to scientific investigation or proof. Einstein theory of Relativity was not initially common sense, based on the state of the art of his day. Nor could experiments be run that could overcome the bias of traditions. Science of any time is not the state of the art. That is still unfolding.

Science laws come to be, first through the human mind and imagination. Sometimes necessity helps it come to focus. What we learn in school is sanitized and not how it came into reality. It starts with an idea in the imagination that lacks proof.

Where the philosophy of science, sets the line in the sand; sensory reality verification, comes in late. The irony is, the most important tool of science is human consciousness, and that is what we experience from the inside; I think therefore I am. It is not I see therefore I am.

This line in the sand may have occurred in the Atheist mirror world of defining itself what it is not; It is not religion. Religion are more likely to exist in the place called faith in an inner vision. A similar place is common to all innovators, before science can see. This is why so much of the prime artistic expression of humanity is connected to the world's religion; coming from the void, before there is light for seeing. But once it can be seen, computer art just cannot complete, because art from the void has an extra dimension; timeless.

That misses the point. Imagination has a different function in the process of developing theories than in creating fiction, for example. What you are saying here is too vague to be of any use, what is most obviously missing is that while a hypothesis might involve some use of the imagination, the theory is created through a process that is quite different to the writing of works of fiction, like the bible. It rather goes without saying that science is a developing discipline; of course it is. The kind of argument you're making here points to that but also ignores its implications - science develops, religion tries to go backwards.

Other than that your basic error is in trying to construct arguments that support what you already think. A better approach is to look at what is and see where it goes. All you have here is a pastiche of partially understood notions ideas pasted together to support what you already think - there's not much to be gained from that.

 

[Kenny]

My opinion on this discussion is realistic and unbiased. Your replies are extremely biased when the only excuse you can offer is that each gospel has material that others don't. In all synoptic gospels almost all other miracles are mentioned by their respective authors.

For any reasonable person, the fact that the first three gospel writers not only failed to mention the greatest miracle of all time, but also omitted the resurrection of a friend of Jesus, for whom Jesus wept upon hearing of his death, can only imply one thing. They didn't know about it. Otherwise they wouldn't present the "miracle" of healing from ...fever.
Especially when John says in his gospel, that the miracles were written in order to make people believe in Jesus and religion claims that Matthew was one of the disciples. Pathetic!

Opinionated and biased, as I said. Again, I wish you would have been there to tell them what you thought was the “greatest miracle of all time”, especially when the greatest miracle was the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus who took our sins and nailed it to the cross.

 

[Kenny]

It is you who denied the word of National God of the Israelites .. claiming the word of YHWH was not of your God.. that your God would not kill the child for the sin of the Father thus YHWH is not your "Daddy"

Now -- that said .. I agree with your insistence that YHWH is not "The Father" .. not the God of Jesus .. and thus not the God of Abe ... Isaac ands Jacob. This however is not your God either. You do not know the name of the God of Abraham .. nor know this God's commands .. other than this God too recommend "Love" in some instances .. this however not even close to the sum total of this God's commands .. and there are many many Gods who recommend love in some instances..

Who is the God of Jesus Brother Ken ? .. and who is your God .. what is this God's name and/or identity. All you have provided is that this God promotes loving neighbor as self as a general rule .. like a God mentioned in the Bible named Marduk .. God who defeats YHWH in the end.. killing the God of the Israelites .. destroying the place where his name resides ..

I’m sorry, you are all over the map and I can’t locate what your point is. (other than you have a different gospel)

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Opinionated and biased, as I said. Again, I wish you would have been there to tell them what you thought was the “greatest miracle of all time”, especially when the greatest miracle was the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus who took our sins and nailed it to the cross.

Well, do you have proof of that or is it a belief?

 

[Kenny]

Well, do you have proof of that or is it a belief?

I believe I did in past posts. His position is that the other Gospels should have included an event written in John’s Gospel. As if he was the determinant of what was important and what the writers should pen.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I believe I did in past posts. His position is that the other Gospels should have included an event written in John’s Gospel. As if he was the determinant of what was important and what the writers should pen.

Okay, I am know going to write that I am right and can't be wrong, so that is so and the truth.
I know God and you know the wrong one. That is the truth and not a belief, but rather proof, because it is written and can't be anything but true.

See, it is simple.

 

[Ajax]

Opinionated and biased, as I said. Again, I wish you would have been there to tell them what you thought was the “greatest miracle of all time”, especially when the greatest miracle was the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus who took our sins and nailed it to the cross.

I disagree. Firstly I mentioned the greatest miracle of Jesus whilst on earth and then I compared it with Jesus resurrection. But if we are to compare resurrections, Lazarus was the greatest and the reasons are:
1) Both resurrections were caused by God (John 5:30 "I can do nothing on my own").
2) Jesus died on Friday and by Sunday morning the tomp was empty. Lazarus was dead for four days.

According to Jewish tradition, "For three days [after death] the soul hovers over the body, intending to re-enter it, but as soon as it sees its [the body's] appearance change, it departs...." Midrash Rabbah (18:1). Jesus was a Jew.
Which resurrection therefore is the greatest?

As for taking our sins, this a Christian invention and is contrary to what the OT teaches. God (and Jesus if you consider him God)) disagrees with it, as he told the prophets and the people. (Exodus 32:30-35, Deut 24:16, Jeremiah 31:29-30, Ezekiel 18-20). Do you consider the OT wrong?
They don't teach you these in church, do they?

 

[Kenny]

Okay, I am know going to write that I am right and can't be wrong, so that is so and the truth.
I know God and you know the wrong one. That is the truth and not a belief, but rather proof, because it is written and can't be anything but true.

See, it is simple.

I’m not sure where you are coming from since this has nothing to do with what I said to him are relayed to you. This wasn’t a “my God is true and yours is not” dialogue.

It was him declaring what the Gospel writers should have written as if he was the one who holds the strings on what should be written. It was opinionated and biased.

 

[Kenny]

I disagree. Firstly I mentioned the greatest miracle of Jesus whilst on earth and then I compared it with Jesus resurrection. But if we are to compare resurrections, Lazarus was the greatest and the reasons are:

This is your opinion which you are free to have.

1) Both resurrections were caused by God (John 5:30 "I can do nothing on my own").

As the healing of lepers was caused by God. For that matter:
John 21:25
But there are also many other things which Jesus did, which, if they were written in detail, I expect that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.

Maybe there are others?

2) Jesus died on Friday and by Sunday morning the tomp was empty. Lazarus was dead for four days.

And?

According to Jewish tradition, "For three days [after death] the soul hovers over the body, intending to re-enter it, but as soon as it sees its [the body's] appearance change, it departs...." Midrash Rabbah (18:1). Jesus was a Jew.
Which resurrection therefore is the greatest?

That of Jesus because Lazarus died again and Jesus did not.

As for taking our sins, this a Christian invention and is contrary to what the OT teaches. God (and Jesus if you consider him God)) disagrees with it, as he told the prophets and the people. (Exodus 32:30-35, Deut 24:16, Jeremiah 31:29-30, Ezekiel 18-20). Do you consider the OT wrong? it

Actually it does in Isaiah 53

They don't teach you these in church, do they?

May I suggest that you go to church to learn?

The Hebrew word is Nasa - to bare up and carry away.

 

[Ajax]

It was him declaring what the Gospel writers should have written as if he was the one who holds the strings on what should be written. It was opinionated and biased.

If you maintain that the Synoptic Gospel writers, as John suggests, recorded miracles with the intent of inspiring belief in Jesus, but they considered more miraculous the healing from fever than the greatest miracle of Jesus on earth, then we can not have any discussion. Maintaining this thought clearly shows who is biased.

 

[Ajax]

Actually it does in Isaiah 53

Wrong once more..The suffering servant is Israel and here is the proof from the same prophet...

Isaiah 41:8-9 "But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, descendant of Abraham my friend, 9 whom I have taken to myself, from the remotest parts of the earth and summoned from countries far away, to whom I have said, 'You are my servant, I have chosen you, I have not rejected you"

Isaiah 43:10-11 "10 You yourselves are my witnesses, declares Yahweh, and the servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that it is I. No god was formed before me, nor will be after me. 11 I, I am Yahweh, and there is no other Saviour but me. (Note the plural).

 

[Kenny]

Wrong once more..The suffering servant is Israel and here is the proof...

Isaiah 41:8-9 "But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, descendant of Abraham my friend, 9 whom I have taken to myself, from the remotest parts of the earth and summoned from countries far away, to whom I have said, 'You are my servant, I have chosen you, I have not rejected you"

Isaiah 43:10-11 "10 You yourselves are my witnesses, declares Yahweh, and the servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that it is I. No god was formed before me, nor will be after me. 11 I, I am Yahweh, and there is no other Saviour but me. (Note the plural).

Sorry… doesn’t fly. You do need to go learn at a church

Many statements have a current and prophetic understanding much like the proposed sacrifice of Isaac.

Matthew 8:17
That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.

Written by a Jewish writer

 

[F1fan]

Sorry… doesn’t fly. You do need to go learn at a church

Why? A church will only tell anyone in attendance some interpretation of the Bible, and it will often differ from some other church.

And what makes any church valid, and is telling truth? Nothing. We dont see churches expressing some interpretation of the Bible based on facts and reasoning. Most all interpretations are just old traditions of belief. Catholicism has the oldest among Christian sects. The protestants have a large variety of interpretations that date back to the 1600's. It's anything goes. The truth is anything goes.

What makes a Christian a Baptist versus a Methodist these days? It's likely what mom and dad are already going to, and the kids just adopt what they believe. And how did they decide to be Baptist? Well it could have been that was the closest church, and they didn't really care one way or another of the "truth" the church teaches.

Many statements have a current and prophetic understanding much like the proposed sacrifice of Isaac.

Matthew 8:17
That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.

Written by a Jewish writer

How is this prophetic in any way? Obviously people still get sick, both physical and mental illnesses. Much of these dialogs seem more relevant to beklievers who suffer from anxiety and fear, and need to believe in these kinds of stories as if a God exists and cares for them. In reality nothing can be observed that backs this up, and the practice of belief is an illusion that is learned, accepted, and maintained. It's notable that many humans don't need to believe in religious ideas to cope and get along with life. So religious belief is quite an interesting sociological phenomenon.

 

[Ajax]

Sorry… doesn’t fly. You do need to go learn at a church

Many statements have a current and prophetic understanding much like the proposed sacrifice of Isaac.

Matthew 8:17
That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.

Written by a Jewish writer

The key to deciphering any biblical text is to view it in context. Isaiah 53 is the fourth of the four “Servant Songs.” (The others are found in Isaiah chapters 42, 49 and 50.) Although the “servant” in Isaiah 53 is not openly identified – these verses merely refer to “My servant” (52:13, 53:11) – the “servant” in each of the previous Servant Songs is plainly and repeatedly identified as the Jewish nation. Beginning with chapter 41, the equating of God’s Servant with the nation of Israel is made nine times by the prophet Isaiah, and no one other than Israel is identified as the “servant”:
“You are My servant, O Israel” (41:8), “You are My servant, Israel” (49:3), see also Isaiah 44:1, 44:2, 44:21, 45:4, 48:20

The Bible is filled with other references to the Jewish people as God’s “servant”; see Jeremiah 30:10, 46:27-28; Psalms 136:22. There is no reason that the “servant” in Isaiah 53 would suddenly switch and refer to someone other than the Jewish people.
I don't want to argue about it -as said before everyone is entitled to their own beliefs- but I have to state the facts.

 

[Sargonski]

I’m sorry, you are all over the map and I can’t locate what your point is. (other than you have a different gospel)

Who is all over the map with a different gospel Brother Ken .. Who is the one who has denied YHWH - God of the Israelites .. stating defacto that this is not your God .. stating that the command from scripture "kill the child for the sin of the Father" (apparently it is you with the different gospel) -- is not from your God ..

That is point 1 Ken - your rejection of the national God of Israel .. Lord YHWH

The second point is that you do not know the name or identity of your God .. you say "God of Abraham" is my God but you do not know who that God is nor the Name of that God .. Who is this God of Abraham .. the God who you claim has only Love the command .. showing that your God is not the God of Abraham .. as the God of Abraham has more commands than that.

Point 3 .. you failed to state if you believe in the power of Ha Satan - tester of souls -- point being .. perhaps this is the name of your God ... Chief God on earth .. and you are using some different gospel than the rest of us.