quote Originally posted by jmclemore: When I see Christians and Scientist arguing over their faults with the others beliefs,

The scientist has facts and theories that hold up to scrutiny to back them up. The Christian has nothing to back up their view.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: Has no one considered that God = "energy" as we know it? Everything that has ever been applied to "God" could be said of energy. In the words of my church, "there are no coincidences".

Sure, but how does this energy God suddenly take a form of some hippie 2000 years ago, for which most people who have ever lived since that time have never heard of this crazy hippie who claims that he is the God of the universe and if you don't believe this hippie is God, then may you burn in a fire pit to infinity and beyond.

What kind of energy God does that sort of nonsense?

Regarding the Church and it's views on science.
http://www.weather.com/news...ent-history-20130313
The History channel also had a good episode on this.

Speaking of miracles.
Warning! Some adult language in lyrics.

[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 09-20-2013).]

quote Originally posted by NoMoreRicers: If god exists outside of spacetime, he can't have any interaction within spacetime.

I believe that I said that time and space can't contain Him, therefore, He exists within and without. And, as Creator, He has interaction with spacetime beyond what our limited abilities could imagine.

quote Originally posted by NoMoreRicers: If [God] interacts within space-time, then [He] must exist within space-time: Inside and outside of space-time are mutually exclusive.

That just tickles me!

Let's say (for the sake of argument) that I were a Christian, and that I just asserted my belief in an omniscient, omnipresent and eternal God that existed outside of space-time, and was also the agency that was responsible for creating space-time (Genesis, or John 1:1) A God who had a son that lived on Earth, was crucified and then resurrected, appearing alive on Earth again, before ascending to heaven. And you are going to tell me that this all knowing, all powerful God simply cannot intervene in his own space-time, whenever and however he wants? You are going to tell me that this God cannot both exist outside of space-time and also exist or act within space-time (His own creation) however he sees fit? If God cannot "interact with space-time" [your words], then what is the Jesus narrative all about? How was that not God interacting with space-time. when he sent his very son into this world?

God cannot interact with space-time? LOL with that assertion, in terms of trying to affect or appeal to such a Christian POV as I just posited (for sake of argument). Christian, Jewish, Islam.. me thinks your assertion of "mutual exclusivity" (above) ain't gonna cut any mustard on the other side of the aisle (so to speak) in this discussion.

Now if you were to address such an assertion about God's limitations vs. space-time to a Deist--that would work.

Do you have a Benjamin Franklin on your contact list?

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-20-2013).]

quote Originally posted by Wichita: Sure, but how does this energy God suddenly take a form of some hippie 2000 years ago, for which most people who have ever lived since that time have never heard of this crazy hippie who claims that he is the God of the universe and if you don't believe this hippie is God, then may you burn in a fire pit to infinity and beyond. What kind of energy God does that sort of nonsense?

That's theology- I'm proposing a explanation of what "God" could possibly be, which doesn't necessarily adhere to any particular theology. So to try to apply such theologies to my explanation would be nonsensical. Besides, if you accept that "God" is in fact energy as we know it, then "God" is *everything*, without exception, including US. It also would mean that there is no separation between anyone or anything, as "energy" in fact connects everything to everything else. Even further down the wormhole, it could be that since we only have a limited knowledge of energy, that there *could* be people who have an innate ability to manipulate energy on a level the rest of us don't understand, such as healing, or manifestation, or even manipulating water so it could hold his weight. Such a person would quite likely be considered a "God" in the eyes of "normal" people who don't have such a grasp of how the universe works. They would probably even write a book about him that people would misunderstand for centuries.

quote Originally posted by NoMoreRicers: If he interacts within space-time, then he must exist within space-time.

That's flawed logic. If there is a being that created space-time, by definition that being had to exist before space-time and therefore outside of space-time.
The idea of a divine being means there is something beyond the reality we experience.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: That's theology- I'm proposing a explanation of what "God" could possibly be, which doesn't necessarily adhere to any particular theology. So to try to apply such theologies to my explanation would be nonsensical. Besides, if you accept that "God" is in fact energy as we know it, then "God" is *everything*, without exception, including US. It also would mean that there is no separation between anyone or anything, as "energy" in fact connects everything to everything else. Even further down the wormhole, it could be that since we only have a limited knowledge of energy, that there *could* be people who have an innate ability to manipulate energy on a level the rest of us don't understand, such as healing, or manifestation, or even manipulating water so it could hold his weight. Such a person would quite likely be considered a "God" in the eyes of "normal" people who don't have such a grasp of how the universe works. They would probably even write a book about him that people would misunderstand for centuries.

Interesting theory.

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: That just tickles me! Let's say (for the sake of argument) that I were a Christian, and that I just asserted my belief in an omniscient, omnipresent and eternal God that existed outside of space-time, and was also the agency that was responsible for creating space-time (Genesis, or John 1:1) A God who had a son that lived on Earth, was crucified and then resurrected, appearing alive on Earth again, before ascending to heaven. And you are going to tell me that this all knowing, all powerful God simply cannot intervene in his own space-time, whenever and however he wants? You are going to tell me that this God cannot both exist outside of space-time and also exist or act within space-time (His own creation) however he sees fit? If God cannot "interact with space-time" [your words], then what is the Jesus narrative all about? How was that not God interacting with space-time. when he sent his very son into this world? God cannot interact with space-time? LOL with that assertion, in terms of trying to affect or appeal to such a Christian POV as I just posited (for sake of argument). Christian, Jewish, Islam.. me thinks your assertion of "mutual exclusivity" (above) ain't gonna cut any mustard on the other side of the aisle (so to speak) in this discussion. Now if you were to address such an assertion about God's limitations vs. space-time to a Deist--that would work. Do you have a Benjamin Franklin on your contact list?

You're misunderstanding my point. I clearly said that if god does interact within spacetime, he will then (even if temporarily,) exist within space time. I was leading to the fact that there would then be a possibility for real evidence. If he is existing in spacetime, there could be spectrographs or some sort of evidence. Maybe there will be some in the near future. Wouldn't that be interesting.

quote Originally posted by NoMoreRicers: You are very good at defining your god outside of that is which falsifiable. I imagine that is the point.

I'm not defining anything with regard to a specific religion. It's not proof of any belief system. I'm saying that if a belief system that contains divine creation is true, that means the creator deity exists outside our concept of space-time.

Your logic fails because since you don't believe in creation you can't hypothesize what it would mean if the story of creation were true.
If creation isn't true, then there is no creator deity, so the discussion of where that deity exists is moot.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: I'm not defining anything with regard to a specific religion. It's not proof of any belief system. I'm saying that if a belief system that contains divine creation is true, that means the creator deity exists outside our concept of space-time. Your logic fails because since you don't believe in creation you can't hypothesize what it would mean if the story of creation were true. If creation isn't true, then there is no creator deity, so the discussion of where that deity exists is moot.

'Existing outside our concept of space-time,' would require 100% transcendence. The only way to make a claim that a 100% transcendent being exists is through faith alone because any evidence or a priori knowledge that would prove its existence would immediately prove that it is not actually 100% transcendent.

No need for us to continue because it's pointless for me to ask for any kind of evidence, justified speculation, or logical arguments.

I always appreciate your willingness to make me think.

quote Originally posted by User00013170: The scientist has facts and theories that hold up to scrutiny to back them up. The Christian has nothing to back up their view.

if you truly value science you'd be able to see the flaw it that statement.
after all, you'll never attempt to measure what you refuse or can not conceive....

If you have no room for the potential of God then your science will just
write it off as unexplained when it doesn't understand what it see.

But for an example of what I'm saying,
You tell me "what would proof of a God look like".

quote Originally posted by jmclemore: if you truly value science you'd be able to see the flaw it that statement. after all, you'll never attempt to measure what you refuse or can not conceive.... If you have no room for the potential of God then your science will just write it off as unexplained when it doesn't understand what it see. But for an example of what I'm saying, You tell me "what would proof of a God look like".

What would proof of a unicorn look like.

I would say that since there are symbolism and pictorial depictions of the Unicorn in various cultures and it has been written since ancient Greek times, even so written in the Bible about the magical powers of the unicorn.

Therefore unicorns are real.

Next is fire breathing dragons....

[This message has been edited by Wichita (edited 09-21-2013).]

quote Originally posted by NoMoreRicers: 'Existing outside our concept of space-time,' would require 100% transcendence.

I agree. That's my point. If there is a creator, the creator had to exist before creation and that requires 100% transcendence.

quote Originally posted by NoMoreRicers: The only way to make a claim that a 100% transcendent being exists is through faith alone because any evidence or a priori knowledge that would prove its existence would immediately prove that it is not actually 100% transcendent.

Here's where you're getting derailed. I'm not making the claim that a creator exists. I'm saying IF one exists, that it existed prior to, and therefore outside of our reality.
Also, physical evidence in our reality doesn't preclude transcendence. If there is any interaction with our reality there can be evidence left behind in our reality. The act of creating this reality would definitely qualify as interacting with it.

Don't get hung up on the argument of whether a creator exists or not. All of this hypothesis requires you to assume one exists simply because if one doesn't exist the questions are irrelevant.

It's like discussing how big of a splash you'd make by dropping a rock in the pool. That assumes there is water in the pool. If the water doesn't exist, the question is pointless. Discussing the size of the splash isn't trying to prove the existence of water. It's only saying how big the splash would be IF there is water in the pool.

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 09-21-2013).]

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Here's where you're getting derailed. I'm not making the claim that a creator exists. I'm saying IF one exists, that it existed prior to, and therefore outside of our reality. Also, physical evidence in our reality doesn't preclude transcendence. If there is any interaction with our reality there can be evidence left behind in our reality. The act of creating this reality would definitely qualify as interacting with it. Don't get hung up on the argument of whether a creator exists or not. All of this hypothesis requires you to assume one exists simply because if one doesn't exist the questions are irrelevant. It's like discussing how big of a splash make by dropping a rock in the pool. That assumes there is water in the pool. If the water doesn't exist, the question is pointless. Discussing the size of the splash isn't trying to prove the existence of water. It's only saying how big the splash would be IF there is water in the pool.

How can some transcendent being interact in our reality without being subjected to the limitations of physical laws in our reality?

You have the ability to create life (children), but that doesn't make you transcendent in any way.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Don't get hung up on the argument of whether a creator exists or not.

Okay.

quote Originally posted by Wichita: What would proof of a unicorn look like. I would say that since there us symbolism and pictorial depictions of the Unicorn in various cultures and it has been written since ancient Greek times, even so written in the Bible about the magical powers of the unicorn. Therefore unicorns are real. Next is fire breathing dragons....

hopefully your were being sarcastic.
That is hardly a reasonable reply worthy of a discussion based on
logic. It doesn't however suggest that a creature matching that
description didn't exist and that it's abilities were not exaggerated.

If we are to rely on the infallibility of science and it's ability to prove or disprove
the existence of a God, how can we do either by being dismissive when it comes
to the conversation.

If a Christian can't prove God exists and Science can't disprove his existence,
putting faith in ether's inability is neither scientific or a faith in God. leaving both
of them flawed in their method.

However, I offer you a logical challenge.
Science and an Idiot, who has met me, can easily demonstrate
my physical existence with a photo graph and even more conclusive,
my physical presence whether dead or alive. But can either prove that
"I" as a conscious intelligent being with intent exists?

[This message has been edited by jmclemore (edited 09-21-2013).]

quote Originally posted by Wichita: How can some transcendent being interact in our reality without being subjected to the limitations of physical laws in our reality? You have the ability to create life (children), but that doesn't make you transcendent in any way.

One way would be for the transcendent being to manifest itself physically within that reality.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: One way would be for the transcendent being to manifest itself physically within that reality.

Then it's immanent and not transcendent.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: That's theology- I'm proposing a explanation of what "God" could possibly be, which doesn't necessarily adhere to any particular theology. So to try to apply such theologies to my explanation would be nonsensical. Besides, if you accept that "God" is in fact energy as we know it, then "God" is *everything*, without exception, including US. It also would mean that there is no separation between anyone or anything, as "energy" in fact connects everything to everything else. Even further down the wormhole, it could be that since we only have a limited knowledge of energy, that there *could* be people who have an innate ability to manipulate energy on a level the rest of us don't understand, such as healing, or manifestation, or even manipulating water so it could hold his weight. Such a person would quite likely be considered a "God" in the eyes of "normal" people who don't have such a grasp of how the universe works. They would probably even write a book about him that people would misunderstand for centuries.

I have a few friends that subscribe to this idea. I don't fully, but I can dig bits and pieces of it.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: That's theology- I'm proposing a explanation of what "God" could possibly be, which doesn't necessarily adhere to any particular theology. So to try to apply such theologies to my explanation would be nonsensical. Besides, if you accept that "God" is in fact energy as we know it, then "God" is *everything*, without exception, including US. It also would mean that there is no separation between anyone or anything, as "energy" in fact connects everything to everything else. Even further down the wormhole, it could be that since we only have a limited knowledge of energy, that there *could* be people who have an innate ability to manipulate energy on a level the rest of us don't understand, such as healing, or manifestation, or even manipulating water so it could hold his weight. Such a person would quite likely be considered a "God" in the eyes of "normal" people who don't have such a grasp of how the universe works. They would probably even write a book about him that people would misunderstand for centuries.

quote Originally posted by NoMoreRicers: Then it's immanent and not transcendent.

That aspect of it is immanent. That isn't to say the whole is immanent.
That is the idea behind the Holy Trinity.

quote Originally posted by NoMoreRicers:

I'm not really sure how to take that.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: I'm not really sure how to take that.

I had no motive behind it, just when I read what you said, that was the first thing that popped into my head.

quote Originally posted by Wichita: What would proof of a unicorn look like.

That is easy. DNA and repeatable breeding.