A Different Proof of God

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

People should reject the Bible’s veracity when it is appropriate to do so, without rejecting the whole thing. We should hold it up as an example of what we used to believe. We should also note that, while our beliefs have changed, our conviction in the belief that SOMETHING more powerful and absolute than we will ever be DOES exist out there. The Bible represents our earliest attempts to understand this power and the reasons as to why we exist. We are simply trying to continue that tradition by exploring how we should live our lives and how/why the world works the way it does.

People like Galileo and Newton and Sagan and Einstein and Darwin are simply the latest in a long line of prophets. In two thousand years, those people will seem just as antiquated, without being irrelevant, as the earliest of the Biblical authors seem to many today. But the idea of a higher power, of God, lives on regardless.

If we just cling to the Bible as the de facto final authority, then all we really do is confine our ability to understand God on a higher level to the words of people who had only a fraction of the understanding of the world that we do now.

22

[quote]mbdix wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

I still find the similarities between Lincoln and Kennedy interesting.

[/quote]

Interesting? Of course they are interesting.

23

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

When religious people start talking about proof and God, they invariably end up trying to refute long-established truths that fly in the face of some of the stories and parables that their faith is based upon. It’s a pointless exercise.[/quote]

wtf? give an example of this.

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
When atheists find “proof” that God does not exist, all they are finding is proof that refutes some archaic statement in the Bible. [/quote]

by archaic do you imply obsolete? what do you mean by archaic statement in the Bible?

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
…and with believers who understand that their faith can and should depend on far larger and more important things than the words of someone written in a book.[/quote]

Romans 10:17 the apostle Paul writes that faith comes from hearing the WORD of God.

In fact the scriptures in Romans sometimes called the Roman Road to Salvation has words that EVERY single Christian lives by and needs to memorize:

It discusses our natural inclination to sin and that is what separates us from God. Most importantly we cannot make ourselves right or earn salvation on our own.

a.)Romans 3:23 For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God

1.)Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is
eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

b.)Romans 8:24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?

C.)Romans 8:38-39 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

d.) Romans 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life

24

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Why does there need to be any proof that God exists? It seems to me that proof doesn’t ever enter the conversation one way or another when it comes to faith. Faith, by definition, operates independent of proof. You don’t need proof that God exists; you have FAITH that He does and you follow His teachings based on this faith.

When religious people start talking about proof and God, they invariably end up trying to refute long-established truths that fly in the face of some of the stories and parables that their faith is based upon. It’s a pointless exercise.

When atheists find “proof” that God does not exist, all they are finding is proof that refutes some archaic statement in the Bible. They are not disproving anything regarding God’s actual existence. It’s an endless cycle that can only end with atheists who understand that science does not disprove anything regarding God’s existence, and with believers who understand that their faith can and should depend on far larger and more important things than the words of someone written in a book.[/quote]

Well said.

The reason I shared this was because I found it interesting. Did you read it?
[/quote]

I admit, I did not read the article. I clicked on the link then stopped. I stopped because my thinking on this matter always comes down to the same point when it comes to questions of proof and God.

To me, there is no difference between “good proof” and “bad proof”. No matter how valid/invalid the proof may seem, the existence of God is simply an unprovable thing. How do you prove He exists? How do you disprove Him?

Again, faith exists independent of proof. It’s like arguing about why Babe Ruth didn’t score more touchdowns on the basketball court. “Evidence” can be interpreted either way; as evidence of God or evidence of certain absolute scientific principles.

The fact that certain scientific principles are absolute under given circumstances leads me to believe that science is actually the key to coming closer to understanding the mystery that is God.

The Truth is not found in the Bible. Those words were written by people who had a FAR smaller ability to understand the mysteries of the world around us. If God is all around us and is innate in all entities, then our understanding of the world around us, even if it is inaccurate in many ways, is still FAR more accurate than the understanding people thousands of years ago had.

I think what Christians believe in is an antiquated interpretation of God’s true nature. I think science is probably the closest language that we can use to put Him into understandable terms. Some scientists think this disproves God’s existence. This is wrong.

Some Christians think that the SCIENCE must be wrong when it is simply their UNDERSTANDING of God that is off. The science does not threaten the possibility of God’s existence, only that the previous terms under which we understood Him are off-base.

I think if Christians of all persuasions were to embrace science as the strongest evidence yet of God’s existence, rather than treat it as a threat to their beliefs, the Christian faith in general would appeal to many, many more people. [/quote]

Ok, I have an understanding with how you believe in GOD. I disagree that GOD is simply an unprovable thing. I understand what you meant I think, “man can’t prove that GOD exist”? But, GOD is provable whenever GOD wants to be.

If no one reads all of the article or majority of it, then that’s fine.

25

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

The Truth is not found in the Bible. Those words were written by people who had a FAR smaller ability to understand the mysteries of the world around us. If God is all around us and is innate in all entities, then our understanding of the world around us, even if it is inaccurate in many ways, is still FAR more accurate than the understanding people thousands of years ago had.

I think what Christians believe in is an antiquated interpretation of God’s true nature. I think science is probably the closest language that we can use to put Him into understandable terms. Some scientists think this disproves God’s existence. This is wrong.

[/quote]

I find your opinion of what Bible believing people understood thousands of years ago hateful, intolerant and the polar opposite of the truth.

I don’t know what your personal spiritual beliefs are, but if you think that there are better people today because of what they understand about science,(if that’s what you are writing) then I think you are one of the dumbest persons in history.

Possibly dumber than the “Batman Shooter.”

26

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

I still find the similarities between Lincoln and Kennedy interesting.

[/quote]

Interesting? Of course they are interesting. [/quote]

Well do me a favor just read that article I posted, get through the stuff you find “stupid” or however you choose to describe it. Then give me your opinion on it. After reading it, do you find it interesting?

27

[quote]mbdix wrote:

Well do me a favor just read that article I posted, get through the stuff you find “stupid” or however you choose to describe it. Then give me your opinion on it. After reading it, do you find it interesting?[/quote]

I have a hard time with this because I can’t get over insane starts like this:

[quote]It is indeed strange to note that the number of Hebrew words in this verse is not 6, not 8, but exactly 7. Here the number seven is discovered by counting the words.

Now if a person counts the Hebrew letters in these seven words, he will discover that the number of letters divides perfectly by seven–is an exact multiple of seven. The number of letters in the seven words is not 27, not 29, but exactly 28, or 4 7’s.

Each numerical “fact” or “seven” which occurs in the structure of the text is called a “feature”–a “numeric” feature". The first two have already been mentioned.

FEATURE ONE. The number of Hebrew words in this verse is exactly 7.

FEATURE TWO. The number of letters in the seven words is exactly 28, or 4 7"s. Now let us continue.

FEATURE THREE. The first three of these seven Hebrew words contain the subject and predicate of the sentence. These three words are translated–“In the beginning God created.” The number of letters in these first three Hebrew words is exactly 14, or 2 7’s.

The last four of these seven words contain the object of the sentence. These four words are translated-- “the heavens and the earth.” The number of letters in these last four Hebrew words is 14, or 2 7’s.

FEATURE FOUR. The last four Hebrew words consist of two objects. The first is “the heavens,” and the second is "and the earth. The number of letters in the first object is exactly 7. The number of letters in the second object is 7.[/quote]

First off I don’t know if all this is true. Second, I don’t really care to go through and check the author of this on all this information to determine that these “can’t be coincidences” are actually correct. Third, Reagan must be the devil type mindset.

That can’t be a coincidence which is what the author concludes over and over again may or may not be true in the stuff he is using.

Here’s what they said about President Reagan. Or we could call him the motherfucking anti-Christ based on this:

[quote]As usual, numbers come into play. It’s said that the Antichrist will carry the Mark of the Beast (666). Where was Rockin’ Ronnie’s mark? In his name, of course, Ronald Wilson Reagan. That’s six letters in each name, folks. 666. But it doesn’t end there.

People have come up with an entire laundry list of other reasons why Reagan was the Antichrist. They range everywhere from the stupid (Revelation 13:3 - “One of its heads seemed to have a mortal wound, but its mortal wound was healed” refers to James Brady?) to the very stupid (Revelation 13:2 - “… its feet were like a bear’s …” refers to the state animal of Reagan’s adopted home state of California).

Pros:

Six letters in each name.

Survived a mortal wound (although not to the head).

First Lady wore a lot of red.

Moved to a house at 666 St. Cloud Rd. upon retirement.[/quote]

How could all this be just a coincidence? How can ANYONE deny this evidence anyways?

I lack the time to check the authors work to make sure he is not messing up to be honest. I can’t rationally come to his conclusion based on crazy ass beginnings like…look at the 4th word in the 2nd verse and count the letters. NO MORTAL COULD DO THAT IT MUST BE GOD GOD GOD GOD! Our numbers just proved the BIBLE! Ok. Holocaust was faked, we didn’t land on the moon, 9/11 was an inside job, and Alex Jones told me Hurricane Sandy happened because Obama caused it. Also Westboro tells me soldiers are dying because God is really pissed off about gay people so he is blowing them up.

I suppose. And Reagan HAS to be Satan.

I mean…how can you deny the evidence?

28

[quote]H factor wrote:

First off I don’t know if all this is true. Second, I don’t really care to go through and check the author of this on all this information to determine that these “can’t be coincidences” are actually correct.

[/quote]

Fare enough.

29

[quote]mbdix wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

First off I don’t know if all this is true. Second, I don’t really care to go through and check the author of this on all this information to determine that these “can’t be coincidences” are actually correct.

[/quote]

Fare enough. [/quote]

I’m just curious though because our minds must work in a very different way. You read this and assumed it was likely correct in its text apparently?

I just find that odd off face value. My first thought when reading almost anything is “bullshit.” Especially something that seems too unlikely to be true. Did you go through and check the author on his work, or did you just read this and think yeah, numerical proof of God, suck on this atheists you can’t deny this proof?

Because honestly I think it’s really strange how different some people’s brains work than mine and I don’t know why I’m different than others in that regard. Seriously I only needed to read a bit of that before I started laughing out loud…but when you first read it your thought was not only is he probably correct in what he is saying numerically (without you checking him), but his conclusion about those coincidences is accurate and it CAN’T be a coincidence?

If so that is interesting in the sense of how your brain works in comparison with mine. I’m just an Occam’s Razor type of guy all the way around.

30

[quote]
I’m just curious though because our minds must work in a very different way. You read this and assumed it was likely correct in its text apparently?[/quote]

While reading that article I was having skepticism about it being true or accurate.

[quote]
I just find that odd off face value. My first thought when reading almost anything is “bullshit.” Especially something that seems too unlikely to be true. Did you go through and check the author on his work, or did you just read this and think yeah, numerical proof of God, suck on this atheists you can’t deny this proof?[/quote]

I don’t believe everything I read. I have not checked the author on his work, when I read it I thought. WHAT!??! Can this be real? This is something that could be proven false very easily by someone if they wanted to take the time. If it is actual facts? WOW! I am not claiming that this is proof of GOD, I am sharing what this article stated. I could care less if you person is atheist, agnostic, or a theist. I wanted to get opinions on it by all who took the time to read it. Not, looking to get into a debate about existence of GOD.

[quote]
Because honestly I think it’s really strange how different some people’s brains work than mine and I don’t know why I’m different than others in that regard. Seriously I only needed to read a bit of that before I started laughing out loud…but when you first read it your thought was not only is he probably correct in what he is saying numerically (without you checking him), but his conclusion about those coincidences is accurate and it CAN’T be a coincidence?

If so that is interesting in the sense of how your brain works in comparison with mine. I’m just an Occam’s Razor type of guy all the way around.[/quote]

When I started the Article I had kinda the same reaction as yours. After reading majority of the article I come away with this. I don’t know if what he said is taking place with regards to numbers in the bible is true, or facts. But, if they are facts and truly take place in the Bible like he describes then it is not comparable to anything that I have ever heard of in describing coincidence.

The ‘facts’ he states that take place in the Bible could easily be proven wrong if they are. If they are indeed ‘facts’ what is your take away from the Article? Coincidence?

31

Numerology is with astrology, alchemy.
It’s fun stuff to read up on, like 10+ years ago, I loved digging through this site
http://www.crystalinks.com/

I just found the stuff to be very interesting to my young mind.
If you like what you posted OP, then you’ll probably have a blast at that site.
I’ve also picked up a book from here

It has some interesting stuff too.

Books

I got Genetic Armageddon, and like you said, if what the person is saying is true, then it’s pretty scary

He has a list of dead scientists, where quite a few were brutally murdered, and no convictions. It’s like every 3-4 months, a scientist involved in viruses, microbiology, vaccines, nuclear stuff, and other industries dies mysteriously (???), eg goes missing, or is just found murdered or dead. I don’t know the statistical significance of that, like whether it’s above the average based on how many people are in those fields, but it’s pretty tragic. One guy was found in a landfill, another had his head smashed,

32

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Numerology is with astrology, alchemy.
It’s fun stuff to read up on, like 10+ years ago, I loved digging through this site
http://www.crystalinks.com/

I just found the stuff to be very interesting to my young mind.
If you like what you posted OP, then you’ll probably have a blast at that site.
I’ve also picked up a book from here

It has some interesting stuff too.

Books

I got Genetic Armageddon, and like you said, if what the person is saying is true, then it’s pretty scary

He has a list of dead scientists, where quite a few were brutally murdered, and no convictions. It’s like every 3-4 months, a scientist involved in viruses, microbiology, vaccines, nuclear stuff, and other industries dies mysteriously (???), eg goes missing, or is just found murdered or dead. I don’t know the statistical significance of that, like whether it’s above the average based on how many people are in those fields, but it’s pretty tragic. One guy was found in a landfill, another had his head smashed,

Where has you more developed mind taking you in what you find interesting? Or have you just figured everything out, and have all the answers now? Hopefully in 10 years from now my thinking will be more evolved to your level

33

No, I don’t have everything figured, hope that’s not how I come across.
Before, I just didn’t really have any direction in my life, lack of critical thinking, goals, just kind of went day-to-day.

34

No claim of god has any merit to it. Doesn’t necessarily mean god doesn’t exist but there isn’t a valid reason to believe one does.

Smarter religious people perform extreme mental gymnastics and use sophistry to protect their beliefs and reinforce the beliefs of those around them.

OP, either accept that there is no reason to believe in any god claims or become a better mental gymnast.

35

[quote]mbdix wrote:

[quote]
I’m just curious though because our minds must work in a very different way. You read this and assumed it was likely correct in its text apparently?[/quote]

While reading that article I was having skepticism about it being true or accurate.

[quote]
I just find that odd off face value. My first thought when reading almost anything is “bullshit.” Especially something that seems too unlikely to be true. Did you go through and check the author on his work, or did you just read this and think yeah, numerical proof of God, suck on this atheists you can’t deny this proof?[/quote]

I don’t believe everything I read. I have not checked the author on his work, when I read it I thought. WHAT!??! Can this be real? This is something that could be proven false very easily by someone if they wanted to take the time. If it is actual facts? WOW! I am not claiming that this is proof of GOD, I am sharing what this article stated. I could care less if you person is atheist, agnostic, or a theist. I wanted to get opinions on it by all who took the time to read it. Not, looking to get into a debate about existence of GOD.

You asked for opinions on the article and I shared them. Also the idea that someone is going to take the time to try and prove wrong everything on the internet is laughable. What you’re saying is here is an insane premise that no one on this site has decided to attempt to prove wrong yet so therefore it may be accurate?

Essentially your thinking boils down to “I have no idea if the author is actually correct on anything in here, but if he is it may mean something.”

As for it not being comparable to anything ever, see the mistakes people made with Nostradamus and about a billion other examples throughout time of “it just can’t be coincidence!”

Honestly I don’t have the time to research this and go through and check all the authors work. Even if everything is as he says which I find either unlikely or meaningless (like 666 Ronald Wilson Reagan is meaningless) the idea that this creates some proof of God is pretty specious at best.

That’s my opinion. I think if you would like to go through and make sure everything is accurate then go for it.

Do you think I need to attempt to prove Reagan was not the anti-Christ based on that numerical coincidence in order to prove it wrong? Why? All the numbers say is his name has a coincidence with the Bible. Reasonable thought tells us that is it plain and simple. Irrational thinking says that means something. Do I really have to attempt to prove that irrational thinking wrong? Why doesn’t the numbers nuts give me some more stuff instead?

36

Certain things are indeed interesting, but it doesn’t mean they mean anything. Is it “cool” that Reagan had some anti-christ coincidences? I guess if you want to believe that was interesting then it is. We can do that with a million other things (see the vast majority of conspiracy theories of all time) if we just try and circle certain things and relate them to other stuff we are wanting to make significant.

Barack= 6
Hussein= 7
Obama= 5

666 is the mark of the beast, but a 7 letter word with devil is devilry that proves he is Satan right? 6 is the first mark of the beast, 7 represents devilry and we cap it off by seeing the 5 letters also coincide with devil.

Beast, devilry, devil. Hitler had 6 letters and Obama is carrying on his work as his name starts with 6 letters as well. And couldn’t I find a ton of other parallels between evil leader if I wanted to?

See how easy this shit is? Fuck I could make these up all day long.

And a lot of irrational chain mail type people would be STUNNED by the coincidences!

Don’t be irrational and try to find proof in shit because someone really wants to make a certain point. ANYONE can do this with enough time. Ignorant people get those chain mails and forward them on because of how freaky and how proof worthy it is.

Rational people laugh. Be rational. We are over our limit already on ignorance.

37

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:

[quote]
I’m just curious though because our minds must work in a very different way. You read this and assumed it was likely correct in its text apparently?[/quote]

While reading that article I was having skepticism about it being true or accurate.

[quote]
I just find that odd off face value. My first thought when reading almost anything is “bullshit.” Especially something that seems too unlikely to be true. Did you go through and check the author on his work, or did you just read this and think yeah, numerical proof of God, suck on this atheists you can’t deny this proof?[/quote]

I don’t believe everything I read. I have not checked the author on his work, when I read it I thought. WHAT!??! Can this be real? This is something that could be proven false very easily by someone if they wanted to take the time. If it is actual facts? WOW! I am not claiming that this is proof of GOD, I am sharing what this article stated. I could care less if you person is atheist, agnostic, or a theist. I wanted to get opinions on it by all who took the time to read it. Not, looking to get into a debate about existence of GOD.

You asked for opinions on the article and I shared them. Also the idea that someone is going to take the time to try and prove wrong everything on the internet is laughable. What you’re saying is here is an insane premise that no one on this site has decided to attempt to prove wrong yet so therefore it may be accurate?

Essentially your thinking boils down to “I have no idea if the author is actually correct on anything in here, but if he is it may mean something.”

As for it not being comparable to anything ever, see the mistakes people made with Nostradamus and about a billion other examples throughout time of “it just can’t be coincidence!”

Honestly I don’t have the time to research this and go through and check all the authors work. Even if everything is as he says which I find either unlikely or meaningless (like 666 Ronald Wilson Reagan is meaningless) the idea that this creates some proof of God is pretty specious at best.

That’s my opinion. I think if you would like to go through and make sure everything is accurate then go for it.

Do you think I need to attempt to prove Reagan was not the anti-Christ based on that numerical coincidence in order to prove it wrong? Why? All the numbers say is his name has a coincidence with the Bible. Reasonable thought tells us that is it plain and simple. Irrational thinking says that means something. Do I really have to attempt to prove that irrational thinking wrong? Why doesn’t the numbers nuts give me some more stuff instead? [/quote]

Cool. Appreciate your opinion.

I don’t expect anyone on this site to try to prove this author wrong. I don’t expect many would even read the majority of the article. And that fact has nothing to do with me trying to decide if it is real or not. I could take the time myself to determine if it has any holes in it’s theory. A person would only have to prove one of his claims false to prove the entire premise false.

The impression you have of what my thinking on this topic is wrong. This site over the years has had several posters know about studies or articles before I had ever seen them. I also know that this article that I posted isn’t only posted by me onto this site. So, knowing that someone on this site might have seen this article before I posted it, or has seen on a different site where someone else has proven it wrong is one reason why I posted here.

Another reason for me posting this on this site was to see what opinions posters like yourself might have on this article. Meaning, “What would an atheist say to the claims made in this article?” Your response boils down to “this looks stupid, and I am not going to waste any time to try and verify or disprove anything written in that article. It is a pointless article” which is fine man, no worries

38

[quote]mbdix wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:

[quote]
I’m just curious though because our minds must work in a very different way. You read this and assumed it was likely correct in its text apparently?[/quote]

While reading that article I was having skepticism about it being true or accurate.

I did not really know your opinion because you did not give it. It will certainly remain pointless for this site until someone goes through and makes sure that the author is correct on every single point.

Even THEN it doesn’t prove God as how can something numerical like this prove God? Does 666 prove Reagan? Why not? Or has this reached the magic point where it has enough numbers to prove God? How many coincidences is proof of God?

Until someone on here makes sure that this guy is correct then we will not know. And once we know he is correct we will not know. Surely you’re agreeing with this?

I thought your point in posting the article was probably because you felt similar to him and not me. Sorry if I misread you.

39

I don’t know what any of this 666 business has to do with Ronald Reagan and the anti-Christ.

Reagan is dead so he can’t be the anti-Christ.

The anti-Christ may very well be alive in this generation because of the prophecies in the Bible for the end times, except for one have come to pass.

If I’m not mistaken the last one is that the temple will be rebuilt in Jerusalem.

The anti-Christ as I recall having read will usher in a world wide “peace” solution and all will marvel. That’s part of the anti-Christ’s allure and why most will be mislead.

I remember hearing that the Bible mentions that only two things God will not forgive. Denying the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:31 and taking the mark of the beast (which is represented by the number 666)

If you wish to learn about it go to the source, which is the Bible. why waste your time on hearsay or fictional accounts of the last days. Nearly every book of the Bible contains prophecy regarding the end times. For believers, the thing to remember is… in the end Satan loses.

40

BIBLICAL NUMERIC aside, the bible does not concern itself with proving the existence of it’s author, God. Rather, we are to “believe that he is” (Heb. 11:6).