Shoe is on the other foot: Prove there is not God.

[Walkntune]

So while you claim "love" is in effect "energy", you dismiss "love" as being subject to the
standards of measurement that is required for all mass and/or energy.

Instead, you insist that to accept your definition of love, one must rely on pure "faith", rather than the scientific methods that work so well with the rest of the known universe.

By removing the restrictions of evidence, you make all definitions equally valid.

I believe right now science is is still in constant debate on even what matter is whether strings of energy or particles or whatnot? It is still very limited on grasping this idea much less the reality of love or the substance of creation?
I believe there is a creative substance of energy so small that it penetrates through the molecular structure of our finest measuring tools and therefore cannot be detected.
Have you discovered the energy substance that makes up gravity yet???
Some only know it exists because of our instinctive nature and being created from this substance as is all creation.

The best I can do for you now is to say love is similar to the force of gravity and it's one object being attracted to another that permeates all through the universe and the hand of God that holds all things together. We can see it's effect on other objects but in and of itself we cannot determine the substance from which it is made.

 

[AK4]

You miss the point.
The Bible is merely an opinion of what the scriptures say.
Then you have to form an opinion on what the Bible says.
Thus making your opinion, nothing more than an opinion on an opinion...

Yeah except you can take the "opinion" of what the translator put and compare it to other translators, concordances, and the scriptures themselves. Make sure that the translator was somewhere in the ballpark with their translation, check it to concordances and lexicons and such and most importantly back to scriptures and what the whole theme or context of what the scriptures teach [not just the context where you got the verse].

So in short you should be getting your "opinion" from the scriptures. Theres checks and balances to it all

 

[McBell]

Yeah except you can take the "opinion" of what the translator put and compare it to other translators, concordances, and the scriptures themselves.

Then your opinion is merely based upon many other opinions.
And that is the whole point.
Consensus of opinion is still merely opinion.

No, you cannot compare to the original scriptures.
None exist.

Make sure that the translator was somewhere in the ballpark with their translation, check it to concordances and lexicons and such and most importantly back to scriptures and what the whole theme or context of what the scriptures teach [not just the context where you got the verse].

But you are still right back to the problem of basing your opinion on another's opinion.

Since the originals no longer exist and the original authors are no longer alive, all you have now is opinion.

So in short you should be getting your "opinion" from the scriptures. Theres checks and balances to it all

No there isn't.
There is nothing but consensus opinion.
And consensus opinion does not make it truth or fact.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I believe right now science is is still in constant debate on even what matter is whether strings of energy or particles or whatnot? It is still very limited on grasping this idea much less the reality of love or the substance of creation?
I believe there is a creative substance of energy so small that it penetrates through the molecular structure of our finest measuring tools and therefore cannot be detected.
Have you discovered the energy substance that makes up gravity yet???
Some only know it exists because of our instinctive nature and being created from this substance as is all creation.

The best I can do for you now is to say love is similar to the force of gravity and it's one object being attracted to another that permeates all through the universe and the hand of God that holds all things together. We can see it's effect on other objects but in and of itself we cannot determine the substance from which it is made.

Poor analogy. Gravity is measurable.
You have yet to show where love is measurable in any way. And to claim it is"so small that it penetrates through the molecular structure of our finest measuring tools and therefore cannot be detected." is a cop out and relegates your "theory" to pseudoscientific nonsense.

 

[McBell]

... relegates your "theory" to pseudo-scientific nonsense.

You give it much more credit than I do.

 

[Walkntune]

Poor analogy. Gravity is measurable.
You have yet to show where love is measurable in any way. And to claim it is"so small that it penetrates through the molecular structure of our finest measuring tools and therefore cannot be detected." is a cop out and relegates your "theory" to pseudoscientific nonsense.

Only by it's effect on objects but not in and of itself. Why can't the structure of gravity be measured and analysed and understood by science?

 

[McBell]

Only by it's effect on objects but not in and of itself. Why can't the structure of gravity be measured and analysed and understood by science?

Wow.
Nice attempt at changing the subject.
Now lets see if tumbleweed falls for it....

 

[AK4]

Then your opinion is merely based upon many other opinions.
And that is the whole point.
Consensus of opinion is still merely opinion.

No, you cannot compare to the original scriptures.
None exist.



But you are still right back to the problem of basing your opinion on another's opinion.

Since the originals no longer exist and the original authors are no longer alive, all you have now is opinion.


No there isn't.
There is nothing but consensus opinion.
And consensus opinion does not make it truth or fact.

I see your point, but even the consensus can be wrong. Look at the all the major religions and different sects they have. Its been my experience that if the majority thinks its right, its wrong. Some elements of truth but lies mixed with truth is still a lie

 

[Walkntune]

You give it much more credit than I do.

You have yet to share anything knowledgeable or answer questions but like a nuisance that kicks from the sidelines.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Only by it's effect on objects but not in and of itself. Why can't the structure of gravity be measured and analysed and understood by science?

A better question would be,
Can you show the the direct effect of love on objects?

 

[McBell]

I see your point, but even the consensus can be wrong.

That is my point.
So now you have the problem of convincing others that your particular opinion on what the Bible says is "more correct" than not only their opinion, but the opinions of those they agree with.

Look at the all the major religions and different sects they have. Its been my experience that if the majority thinks its right, its wrong. Some elements of truth but lies mixed with truth is still a lie

That is what happens when you pick and choose through the Bible.

 

[McBell]

You have yet to share anything knowledgeable or answer questions but like a nuisance that kicks from the sidelines.

Truth hurts does it?

 

[AK4]

to Mestemia

Let me get this straight, as an agnostic you dont dismiss there is a God and you dont claim there isnt one. So where do you stand in this thread? Either the universe is infinitly unknowable or at some point we would have to reach a point where everything started.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Im not saying that. Im saying that sometimes an evil can bring out good or that if we experience an evil some good may come out of/from it

Take any particular evil action or experience that you describe this way.

Is it truly evil? Then it is not a loving act and love is not all-encompassing.

Is it actually good? Then you're saying that the evil act is actually a good act... i.e. that evil is good.

Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

 

[McBell]

to Mestemia

Let me get this straight, as an agnostic you dont dismiss there is a God and you dont claim there isnt one. So where do you stand in this thread?

What do my beliefs have to do with anything?

Either the universe is infinitly unknowable or at some point we would have to reach a point where everything started.

That is not an either or situation.
So I do not understand what you are wanting to find out.

 

[AK4]

That is my point.
So now you have the problem of convincing others that your particular opinion on what the Bible says is "more correct" than not only their opinion, but the opinions of those they agree with.

My convincing is by using the scriptures to those who actually believe what they are supposed to say. i.e. the eternal thing for one. The consensus out there in christianity and judaism is eternal/eternity/everlasting/for ever and ever are scriptural when throughout the bible there are numerous proofs to the contrary. Judaism definitely need everlasting to be scriptural for their religion to be. Without it well...never mind. Christianity needs it for their all important scare tactic of hell and the money from tithing. The convincing would come from showing scripture upon scripture to those who have an open mind and believe that the scripture means what it means. Heres a good one for you, the bible doesnt mean what it says, it means what it means. Think about that

That is what happens when you pick and choose through the Bible.

Yeah pick and choose and dont make sure it doesnt contradict in no other way in the bible. Heres a basic one, the bible says "God who does not lie" yet you look at the doctrines of christianity and judaism and they believe that God does lie. Will they admit it, no. But they hold firm to contradictory beliefs and doctrines

 

[Charity]

to Mestemia

Let me get this straight, as an agnostic you dont dismiss there is a God and you dont claim there isnt one. So where do you stand in this thread? Either the universe is infinitly unknowable or at some point we would have to reach a point where everything started.

I know this was to Mestemia, but do you mind if I ask if you are now using science to prove your points? I thought science was used to disprove it. Even Dawkins says "there may be some genuinely profound and meaningful questions that are forever beyond the reach of science".
I see where you are coming from, but I was just curious.....

 

[AK4]

Take any particular evil action or experience that you describe this way.

Is it truly evil? Then it is not a loving act and love is not all-encompassing.

Is it actually good? Then you're saying that the evil act is actually a good act... i.e. that evil is good.

Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

Okay. God ultimately holds the power of life and death. God wants us to experience the evil, death, so that later after being brought back to life we will appreciate life fully. The act of death was evil, but it was a necessary evil for the purpose of good

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Okay. God ultimately holds the power of life and death. God wants us to experience the evil, death, so that later after being brought back to life we will appreciate life fully. The act of death was evil, but it was a necessary evil for the purpose of good

So... the evil is actually good?

 

[AK4]

I know this was to Mestemia, but do you mind if I ask if you are now using science to prove your points? I thought science was used to disprove it. Even Dawkins says "there may be some genuinely profound and meaningful questions that are forever beyond the reach of science".
I see where you are coming from, but I was just curious.....

I think they go hand in hand. I think science is another way God reveals Himself and We can use science to get to know God and how He does things. [imo i think He is teaching us something that we will also do some of things that He has done like create and so science can show us how He did it so we can do something similar in future when we become like Him]. The only thing i can back up in that parenthetical sentence is that we will be like Him, other than that the rest is speculation.

I sorta agree with that Dawkins statement. We probably can only go so far with science and the rest God will probably show us plainly. But to be infinitly unknowable just doesnt match up with the scriptures.