The Trinity (a discussion)

@Jasper10,

I would suggest that as the “I am” can CONTROL the consciousness states then the “I am” is definitely not consciousness as secular science suggests.I would therefore suggest that the “I am” is one part of our 3 part make up.

1 Reply

@NealNealNeal,

All that serve the true living God the way he wants knows he is there. He reveals himself in certain ways.

0 Replies

@Jasper10,

I would suggest the reason that secular science doesn’t understand the psychological workings and thus consciousness is because it’s science is not correct..It relies heavily on that invented flowery mathematical and mythical gravitational force to try and explain things.

I would suggest that as everything vibrates or “toggles” as I call it, in the cosmos then natures science needs to be adopted to explain things.The cosmos and the mechanical psychological workings can be perfectly explained by balanced, “toggling” -/+ magnetic forces.

1 Reply

@Jasper10,

This would mean that the electromagnetic fields that saturate the cosmos at both the macro and micro levels would need to be in place as the multiple big bangs and big crunches occur and this would have always been the case with natures science.In other words electromagnetic fields control matter.Matter does not control electromagnetic fields as secular science suggests.

1 Reply

@Jasper10,

I would suggest that there is a controlling element to the physical/psychological make up.Things don’t just happen.This element controls the “toggling” consciousness states.In other words this controlling element is not those two distinct consciousness states of “in the moment” and “out of the moment”.This element is embroiled within these 2 “waking” consciousness states yes,but it is completely separate from them or else how could it control them?.I suggest and maintain that this element is separate from another 2 distinct but separate elements which form part of our overall make up.

0 Replies

@The Anointed,

Frank said:

Quote:

I KNOW THERE MAY BE A GOD.

The reason I don’t put any weight on Frank's 'profound' pronouncements about God, is his unwillingness to say a word about his efforts to 'find' this possible God/god. Once serving at the Vatican says nothing about that.

If he made no effort to do so, he is not worth discussing the matter with.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Frank said:
Quote:

I KNOW THERE MAY BE A GOD.

The reason I don’t put any weight on Frank's 'profound' pronouncements about God, is his unwillingness to say a word about his efforts to 'find' this possible God/god. Once serving at the Vatican says nothing about that.

If he made no effort to do so, he is not worth discussing the matter with.

One: What does that have to do with the comment of mine that you quoted?

Two: Search hard enough for Zeus...and you will find him. Which is the reason I do not search for your gods. Frankly, I think you people do not search for them either. I think you simply accept that the gods exist...and then wonder why others do not see them also.

0 Replies

For the record, No mention was made of 'my god'.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

For the record, No mention was made of 'my god'.

For the record...there was no need for that.

Have you searched?

Have you found?

If YES...was what you found...a surprise?

Or was it what you expected?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

If YES...was what you found...a surprise?

Or was it what you expected?

You mean you are ready to discuss such a search? I always am, but it ought to be reciprocal. Not that I expect anyone's experience to convince another, but I have found them edifying on those very rare occasions when an honest discussion happens, regardless of the search results.

But Yes, it was more surprising than I could have imagined. It turned most everything I ever heard about him or what to expect, on its head. It gave me a severe allergy to dogma and I struggle to remain polite when I hear any.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
If YES...was what you found...a surprise?

Or was it what you expected?

You mean you are ready to discuss such a search? I always am, but it ought to be reciprocal. Not that I expect anyone's experience to convince another, but I have found them edifying on those very rare occasions when an honest discussion happens, regardless of the search results.

But Yes, it was more surprising than I could have imagined. It turned most everything I ever heard about him or what to expect, on its head. It gave me a severe allergy to dogma and I struggle to remain polite when I hear any.

I have had discussions about religion (and the searches) for the last four decades...some polite and reasoned...some, shall we say, spirited. I've been lucky enough to have discussions with a bishop, with many priests and ministers, with Jews, Muslims, atheists, and agnostics.

If you want to have a discussion...I am very interested. My intentions are to be rigorously polite with every discussion partner...unless that person decides to sully the interaction. Mostly, at that point, I just leave the discussion.

I am, however, direct in my questions and comments. I hope you are too.

So let's have at it.

Here is my position on the issue of "Is there a GOD?"

I do not know if any GOD (or gods) exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect that gods cannot exist…that the existence of a GOD or gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that at least one GOD must exist...that the existence of at least one GOD is needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction on whether any gods exist or not...so I don't.

(When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.)

Do you have any questions about my position? Are there any items in that position with which you have a significant difference?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I have had discussions about religion (and the searches) for the last four decades...some polite and reasoned...some, shall we say, spirited. I've been lucky enough to have discussions with a bishop, with many priests and ministers, with Jews, Muslims, atheists, and agnostics.

If you want to have a discussion...I am very interested. My intentions are to be rigorously polite with every discussion partner...unless that person decides to sully the interaction. Mostly, at that point, I just leave the discussion.

I am, however, direct in my questions and comments. I hope you are too.

So let's have at it.

Here is my position on the issue of "Is there a GOD?"

I do not know if any GOD (or gods) exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect that gods cannot exist…that the existence of a GOD or gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that at least one GOD must exist...that the existence of at least one GOD is needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction on whether any gods exist or not...so I don't.

(When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.)

Do you have any questions about my position? Are there any items in that position with which you have a significant difference?

You have definitely had more discussions than I then. But 'spirited' and 'polite' are not mutually exclusive. And the ones that were not spirited, I doubt they were worth much.

Yes, by now I am intimately familiar with your position. And of course all those points were all true of me (and everyone else) at one time. The only thing I fundamentally disagree with you on is your dogma which insists that there IS no way anyone can know. I would like to know your thinking behind that position.

In my case, your list got crossed off, one by one, not all at once. Item 3 was the first to go, that too was a progressive process, not a road to Damascus experience. It started at about age 7, long before there was a formal Intelligent Design community. It reached the point where I drew a line through it about 40 years later. I have already shared a bit of that reasoning with you. The others items fell like dominoes over the next two decades.

I attended several different churches during that time because once you even suspect the necessity of an intelligence behind all this, I found it natural to want to know about it and 'church' is, or was, the only place this society sanctioned looking for it. I was a science geek but obviously 'Science' was not supportive of that search. The 'church' was no better as it turned out. I partly blame them and partly my own stubbornness for my slow progress.

The only toe hold I have to question you on at this point is the one I started with. If one sees that the existence of a God (per your definition) is a possibility or cannot be ruled out, on what basis can you rule out ever finding it? Maybe you see no connection between this physical universe and 'us'? That’s the only explanation that occurs to me. Do you see no reason to think the same God/gods might be responsible for both, assuming it exists? That would seem like a no brainer to me.

But glad you’re willing to discuss!

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

The only thing I fundamentally disagree with you on is your dogma which insists that there IS no way anyone can know. I would like to know your thinking behind that position.

Quote:

The only toe hold I have to question you on at this point is the one I started with. If one sees that the existence of a God (per your definition) is a possibility or cannot be ruled out, on what basis can you rule out ever finding it?

Great. The game is afoot. And rather than attempt to handle all of the things you raised, I want to concentrate on the first one...the one to which you returned.

There was a time when I used to handle the "there is no way to know" comment differently from the way I deal with it now. I used to differentiate between "Can one know that there is a GOD?" from "Can one know that there are no gods?"

I remain consistent on the latter. There is absolutely no way any human can KNOW that there are no gods...because in order to KNOW that, one would have to be a GOD. An assertion, "There are no gods"...MUST be a blind guess. There is no way to arrive at that using logic, reason, science, or math. In order to do so, one would have to be EVERYWHERE...and would have to be EVERYWHERE at the same instance to know there are no gods. (Even that assumes that gods can be detected, which I am willing to concede, because I can think of no way any human could possibly be EVERYWHERE.)

As for the former (Can one KNOW that there IS at least one GOD?)...well, I have never really insisted that one CANNOT KNOW it, but that if one asserts there is at least one god...an obligation to provide a reasonable explanation for how that knowledge came into being...and to provide absolute proof that one is not simply deluding one's self.

I've never had anyone come even close to meeting either one of those two provisos...but that is not to say that it will never happen.

I am suggesting here that one CANNOT KNOW there are no gods...so any assertion that there are no gods is a blind guess. I am also suggesting that if one asserts "There is at least one GOD (at least one maker of what we humans call the physical universe)...then one has an obligation to providing a reasonable explanation for how that knowledge came into being...and provide proof that one is not simply deluding one's self.

Are you asserting that there IS at least one GOD? I've provided my position on the question...and I am now asking you to provide your position. Then we can get to the obligations I suggest accrue.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

So Frank puts the Christian in a very difficult position when discussing God with him. We can discuss evidence with Frank as in a court room. However, Frank has come to the conclusion that the evidence is inconclusive.
Now, how does the Christian learn more about God? Either from revelation or through the empowerment by the Holy Spirit. Thus, the Christian "testifies" about God.
However, Frank dismissed this testimony about God by suggesting that millions of Christians may be self deceived.
However, God won't play Frank's game. Even when He was on earth Jesus gave a veiled reference to His resurrection when He was asked to "show us a sign".
So it is between God and Frank. However, Christians can pray for Frank.

1 Reply

@NealNealNeal,

NealNealNeal wrote:

So Frank puts the Christian in a very difficult position when discussing God with him. We can discuss evidence with Frank as in a court room. However, Frank has come to the conclusion that the evidence is inconclusive.
Now, how does the Christian learn more about God? Either from revelation or through the empowerment by the Holy Spirit. Thus, the Christian "testifies" about God.
However, Frank dismissed this testimony about God by suggesting that millions of Christians may be self deceived.
However, God won't play Frank's game. Even when He was on earth Jesus gave a veiled reference to His resurrection when He was asked to "show us a sign".
So it is between God and Frank. However, Christians can pray for Frank.

Thank you for "praying" for me. But why do you worship a god who would want to punish me for telling the truth? I honestly do not know if there are any gods...and I do not see enough evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess about the issue. Why do you...AND YOUR GOD...see that as something worthy of punishment?

1 Reply

I would suggest that no DEFINITIVE proof is given as to whether a God exists or not. An Atheist and a Theist can only HOPE that a God exists or not. Hoping is not the same as guessing. There is no burden of proof on either party therefore to prove it one way or the other.

I would suggest that if a God exists then BELIEF is not enough. This is certainly true of the Christian religion because it states that even the devil believes that a God exists.

I'm comfortable with that as it balances the books.

1 Reply

@Jasper10,

I have just checked to see if the Christian scriptures agree that belief is not enough and it states:

James 2:19
19.You believe that God is one. Good for you! Even the demons believe that— and shudder.

I would suggest that natures full logic science agrees with this as well because at the quantum level I would suggest that a + and - although separate exist together.

I have suggested this by the example of if you cut a magnet in half what is the polarity at the cut.

I would suggest that this confirms natures full logic of:

+=+
+=-
-=+
-=-

or

-/+=-/+

1 Reply

@Jasper10,

I would suggest that John 1:5 may be connected to this as well and is a very interesting/intriguing concept.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I want to concentrate on the first one...the one to which you returned.

There was a time when I used to handle the "there is no way to know" comment differently from the way I deal with it now. I used to differentiate between "Can one know that there is a GOD?" from "Can one know that there are no gods?"

I remain consistent on the latter. There is absolutely no way any human can KNOW that there are no gods...because in order to KNOW that, one would have to be a GOD. An assertion, "There are no gods"...MUST be a blind guess. There is no way to arrive at that using logic, reason, science, or math. In order to do so, one would have to be EVERYWHERE...and would have to be EVERYWHERE at the same instance to know there are no gods. (Even that assumes that gods can be detected, which I am willing to concede, because I can think of no way any human could possibly be EVERYWHERE.).

As for the former (Can one KNOW that there IS at least one GOD?)...well, I have never really insisted that one CANNOT KNOW it, but that if one asserts there is at least one god...an obligation to provide a reasonable explanation for how that knowledge came into being...and to provide absolute proof that one is not simply deluding one's self.

I've never had anyone come even close to meeting either one of those two provisos...but that is not to say that it will never happen.

I am suggesting here that one CANNOT KNOW there are no gods...so any assertion that there are no gods is a blind guess. I am also suggesting that if one asserts "There is at least one GOD (at least one maker of what we humans call the physical universe)...then one has an obligation to providing a reasonable explanation for how that knowledge came into being...and provide proof that one is not simply deluding one's self.

In the context of what you have said so far, that leaves me confused about your position. You say you USED to differentiate between those two propositions implying that now you do not. And then you build a very good case for NOT seeing them as equally difficult/impossible.

The case of 'there is no God or gods' is as you say, impossible to ever prove. Perfectly logical, and I am in agreement. Whereas now you concede that in the case of 'there is at least one God/god', it is not necessarily impossible to know. By your own declaration, the two propositions are clearly not equal, thus making the latter an infinitely more logical and potentially beneficial pursuit and eliminating the need to even bother with the former. I never do, other than to occasionally point out the absurdity of it when some nitwit makes that claim.

You asserted that making the claim that at least one God exists obligates the claimant to provide absolute proof of that. The only one that is true for is the claimant himself, if he is intellectually honest and not just going on 'faith'. It does obligate him to offer what does convince him of that if asked however. But There is no universal objective proof that satisfies every man on any significant question. Insisting on such a thing seems like an excuse to dismiss the subject rather than engage with it.

True, no one else can know for certain whether I am delusional or not, nor could I ever furnish absolute proof that I am not. But since my claim is so extraordinary, I take that possibility very seriously and devote a lot of time proving that I’m not, at least to myself. I realize the difficulties of self diagnosis, but that too is not impossible.

I have already given one my personal absolute proofs (protein argument) of why I know an intelligence was involved in the origin of biological life (part of the physical universe) so unless you want it again, I won’t Repeat it here. I have yet to find anyone, even among professional biologists, with a counter argument that addresses it, other than to divert the discussion to my presumed religious bias. I saw no sign that they even understood the core of the argument (it was not mere complexity as often claimed).

Neal said that you make it difficult for Christians to prove the existence of God, but your definition is by far the easier of the two 'Gods' to 'prove'. The one in the Bible is far more difficult. There is nothing BUT a scientific argument for yours, and those are readily available if one is not predisposed to reject them out of hand. Physicists know this very well, it’s why they seriously postulate the absurd 'multiverse' without a shred of evidence. If this is/were the only one, there is no alternative to 'your' God.

Quote:

Are you asserting that there IS at least one GOD? I've provided my position on the question...and I am now asking you to provide your position. Then we can get to the obligations I suggest accrue.

Yes, I am 'asserting' that there is at least one preexisting intelligence/God necessary to explain the existence of the physical universe including us. But that requires a pretty deep understanding of at least one and preferably several science disciplines.

I’ve offered you my simplest, easily understood 'proof' and for reasons that were not clear, you discounted it without any counter argument. If you like, we can go on to other scientific arguments for 'God'. You probably know in general what they are, so I’m open to any of those that you may wish, as there are no other kind for the God in your definition.

I haven’t yet gotten to my real objection to your position but I’ve run out of time. It’s time for my weekly sanity preserving flight. More later, but that should provide at least a little grist for the mill.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank,
I worship God because He is God. I believe that God is worthy of worship.
It is the highest honor to have a personal relationship with Him.
As for your last sentence, I believe that we are all worthy of punishment because we are each sinners in the eyes of God. In His Grace and Mercy Jesus died for us sins. Now, all we need to do is accept His gift to us of eternal salvation.
What I just said comes from illumination and revelation that comes from God. It does not come from me. I am merely a messenger.
If Universalism is correct, I will be extremely happy. I will be giving you a hug out of joy. However, I don't believe that the Bible teaches Universalism.

0 Replies

The Trinity (a discussion)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know