If scientists do discover god...

Akrasia

Will he be angry?

A lot of christians here seem to think that god prefers that we believe in him using faith, and that god wants to give us the 'choice' not to believe in him.

If scientists eventually do discover God to be real, and can identify and measure him and conclusively prove with 99% certainty that he was real, would this be gods greatest joy (that his creations progressed so far) or would it ruin his plan that we should all trust in him without fully knowing that he definitely exists?

MrPudding

As if he needs something else to be angry about.

MrP

kelly1

Akrasia wrote: »

Will he be angry?

A lot of christians here seem to think that god prefers that we believe in him using faith, and that god wants to give us the 'choice' not to believe in him.

If scientists eventually do discover God to be real, and can identify and measure him and conclusively prove with 99% certainty that he was real, would this be gods greatest joy (that his creations progressed so far) or would it ruin his plan that we should all trust in him without fully knowing that he definitely exists?

It's not going to happen. Science can only deal with the natural world. I believe God has designed things so that His existence is unprovable. Please don't ask me for a definite answer as to why.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

Please don't ask me for a definite answer as to why.

Doesn't it even make your curious?

kelly1

robindch wrote: »

Doesn't it even make your curious?

Yes, I've often thought about it. The only reasons I can think of are:

1. God uses it as a means to test us, to separate the sheep from the goats.
2. We merit greater reward in Heaven because we believe without seeing. Our faith pleases God:

29 Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed.

I'm sure theologians have something more comprehensive.

Akrasia

kelly1 wrote: »

Yes, I've often thought about it. The only reasons I can think of are:

1. God uses it as a means to test us, to separate the sheep from the goats.

What's so good about sheep? (and whats so bad about goats?)

JimiTime

If the trajectory of a southwest wind was suddenly changed by a banana from space, how many apples are in a bunch of grapes?

iUseVi

JimiTime wrote: »

If the trajectory of a southwest wind was suddenly changed by a banana from space, how many apples are in a bunch of grapes?

Thanks, JimiTime. I'm not sure if Akrasia has stopped taking medication or something, but the OP was just wacky and made no sense whatsoever. Plus I'm not sure what it's really doing in the Christianity forum.

Akrasia

JimiTime wrote: »

If the trajectory of a southwest wind was suddenly changed by a banana from space, how many apples are in a bunch of grapes?

I suppose that post made about as much sense as you normally do... :P

I'm talking about quantum physics. If scientists discover particles or an energy that has an obvious intelligence and a deliberate purpose and this was a fundamental demonstration that there is an intelligence behind the universe.
(I don't think this is very likely, but it is possible, and if god does interact with the universe, there must fundamentally be some process by which he does so that can be measured or at least glimpsed)

Its impossible to disprove something to the satisfaction of people who simply insist on believing, but it is possible to prove things to the skeptical that they didn't think possible. (you just need compelling evidence)

Fanny Cradock

I would think that such a thing is beyond science. However, if God where proved to exist there certainly would be a lot of angry people out there.

Akrasia

iUseVi wrote: »

Thanks, JimiTime. I'm not sure if Akrasia has stopped taking medication or something, but the OP was just wacky and made no sense whatsoever. Plus I'm not sure what it's really doing in the Christianity forum.

It made plenty of sense.

1. It appears that god doesn't want to be directly observed or proven to exist (thats why he sends prophets to talk for him, he only performs 'miracles' that are ambigous and could have alternative explanations)

2. God (according to some christians here) values faith and trust in his existence above everything else. If His existence was proven, then the cynical amongst us might be forced to believe in him (through weight of evidence) and so he would be forced to admit people into heaven who he previously would have damned to hell

Galvasean

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I would think that such a thing is beyond science. However, if God where proved to exist there certainly would be a lot of angry people out there.

More like repenting in a hurry! :eek:

Akrasia

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I would think that such a thing is beyond science. However, if God where proved to exist there certainly would be a lot of angry people out there.

There would be a lot of people in crisis because everyone hates being proven wrong, but i believe atheists would accept the evidence without 'anger'.

Perhaps (almost certainly) those of other religions to whom this newly discovered god was incompatible would be angry and refuse to accept the new information. Is that what you meant?

iUseVi

Akrasia wrote: »

It made plenty of sense.

1. It appears that god doesn't want to be directly observed or proven to exist (thats why he sends prophets to talk for him, he only performs 'miracles' that are ambigous and could have alternative explanations)

OK, it made sense because it used well constructed English, but neither theist nor atheist would think such a situation possible

Considering Christians believe that Jesus was raised from the dead, that would qualify as an unambiguous miracle. Although admittedly I have yet to see one....;)

Akrasia wrote: »

2. God (according to some christians here) values faith and trust in his existence above everything else. If His existence was proven, then the cynical amongst us might be forced to believe in him (through weight of evidence) and so he would be forced to admit people into heaven who he previously would have damned to hell

If God wanted us to believe without the use of evidence, surely He would construct the Universe in such way that He could not be proved. (conveniently) Besides, He would surely know in advance that Humans would "discover" Him with science, and have a plan.

Fanny Cradock

Most atheists probably would, but I could imagine that an angry man like Hitchens, for example, would be quite put out by such a discovery.

I don't believe that science will ever be able to prove or disprove that ther4e is a God, let alone a Christian one. You may as well try and view the nucleus of a cell with a swiss roll as prove the (non)existence of God with science. As an aside, I would also imagine that such a discovery would cause some very, very nasty wars.

Akrasia

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Most atheists probably would, but I could imagine that an angry man like Hitchens, for example, would be quite put out by such a discovery.

Believe me, I share your opinion of Hitchens. I consider him to be a charlatan and a self publicist who has never had an original idea, and argues only from a point of pure arrogance

I don't believe that science will ever be able to prove or disprove that ther4e is a God, let alone a Christian one. You may as well try and view the nucleus of a cell with a swiss roll as prove the (non)existence of God with science. As an aside, I would also imagine that such a discovery would cause some very, very nasty wars.

Alright fair enough.

PDN

I think that if Christians are correct in believing the Bible to be true then there have already been events that have proved the existence of God to at least the 99% mentioned by the OP. Those who witnessed the Resurrection, or the feeding of the 5000, surely had such evidence in front of their eyes.

Of course not everyone who witnessed such events became a 'believer' in the sense of becoming a follower of Christ. Faith is more than just believing that God exists.

I think that many people faced by 99% proof of God's existence will still choose to interpret the evidence differently. They will probably accuse Christians of interpreting the evidence wrongly and therefore accuse us of being 'anti-science' and lying because we don't agree with whatever excuse they devise.

Fanny Cradock

Akrasia wrote: »

Believe me, I share your opinion of Hitchens. I consider him to be a charlatan and a self publicist who has never had an original idea, and argues only from a point of pure arrogance

I'm somewhat surprised. I've seen posts from fans that border on adoring eulogies.

Akrasia

PDN wrote: »

I think that if Christians are correct in believing the Bible to be true then there have already been events that have proved the existence of God to at least the 99% mentioned by the OP. Those who witnessed the Resurrection, or the feeding of the 5000, surely had such evidence in front of their eyes.

Thats fine for the people who were there and saw it for themselves, but unverifiable second and third hand + reports from 2000 years ago don't count as proof today, certainly not to 99% certainty unless one has already come to the conclusion before looking at the evidence.

I think that many people faced by 99% proof of God's existence will still choose to interpret the evidence differently. They will probably accuse Christians of interpreting the evidence wrongly and therefore accuse us of being 'anti-science' and lying because we don't agree with whatever excuse they devise.

you're probably right, but if the evidence was strong enough, most people would eventually accept it. (there'll always be some who believe in crazy superstitions like Faeries and astrology)

bus77

Empirical proof would just be 'yucky'. People would crowd around it like a holy relic.

PDN

Akrasia wrote: »

Thats fine for the people who were there and saw it for themselves, but unverifiable second and third hand + reports from 2000 years ago don't count as proof today, certainly not to 99% certainty unless one has already come to the conclusion before looking at the evidence.

Agreed. I would not claim that the evidence today approaches 99%. Obviously I personally believe it to be over 50%, otherwise I would be an unbeliever.

My point was that, if those 2000 years ago could have 99% proof then there is no logical or philosophical reason why such proof could not be attained today. Also, if such a high level of proof still left room for faith 2000 years ago, then it should not exclude faith if it happened today.

kelly1

Has anyone heard of the Miracle of the Sun that happened in Fatima in 1917?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Miracle_of_the_Sun

MrPudding

kelly1 wrote: »

Has anyone heard of the Miracle of the Sun that allegedly happened in Fatima in 1917?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Miracle_of_the_Sun

Fixed that for you.

MrP

kelly1

MrPudding wrote: »

Fixed that for you.

MrP

Gee, thanks. I wonder though what it takes before people will believe? There was an estimated 50k people who witnessed the (alleged) miracle and it was reported in the "Seculo" newspaper, a paper which was known for its anti-clerical stance.

Do you doubt that the event ever happened or do you believe it was a natural phenomenon?

* "Before the astonished eyes of the crowd, whose aspect was biblical as they stood bare-headed, eagerly searching the sky, the sun trembled, made sudden incredible movements outside all cosmic laws — the sun 'danced' according to the typical expression of the people." ― Avelino de Almeida,[18] writing for O Século (Portugal's most widely-circulated[19] and influential newspaper, which was pro-government and anti-clerical at the time[18] Almeida's previous articles had been to satirize the previously reported events at Fátima).[20]

* "The sun, at one moment surrounded with scarlet flame, at another aureoled in yellow and deep purple, seemed to be in an exceeding fast and whirling movement, at times appearing to be loosened from the sky and to be approaching the earth, strongly radiating heat." ― Dr. Domingos Pinto Coelho, writing for the newspaper Ordem.[21]

* "…The silver sun, enveloped in the same gauzy grey light, was seen to whirl and turn in the circle of broken clouds… The light turned a beautiful blue, as if it had come through the stained-glass windows of a cathedral, and spread itself over the people who knelt with outstretched hands… people wept and prayed with uncovered heads, in the presence of a miracle they had awaited. The seconds seemed like hours, so vivid were they." ― Reporter for the Lisbon newspaper O Dia.[22]

* "The sun's disc did not remain immobile. This was not the sparkling of a heavenly body, for it spun round on itself in a mad whirl, when suddenly a clamor was heard from all the people. The sun, whirling, seemed to loosen itself from the firmament and advance threateningly upon the earth as if to crush us with its huge fiery weight. The sensation during those moments was terrible." ― Dr. Almeida Garrett, Professor of Natural Sciences at Coimbra University.[23]

* "As if like a bolt from the blue, the clouds were wrenched apart, and the sun at its zenith appeared in all its splendor. It began to revolve vertiginously on its axis, like the most magnificent firewheel that could be imagined, taking on all the colors of the rainbow and sending forth multi-colored flashes of light, producing the most astounding effect. This sublime and incomparable spectacle, which was repeated three distinct times, lasted for about ten minutes. The immense multitude, overcome by the evidence of such a tremendous prodigy, threw themselves on their knees." ― Dr. Formigão, a professor at the seminary at Santarem, and a priest.[23]

* "I feel incapable of describing what I saw. I looked fixedly at the sun, which seemed pale and did not hurt my eyes. Looking like a ball of snow, revolving on itself, it suddenly seemed to come down in a zig-zag, menacing the earth. Terrified, I ran and hid myself among the people, who were weeping and expecting the end of the world at any moment." ― Rev. Joaquim Lourenço, describing his boyhood experience in Alburitel, eighteen kilometers from Fatima.[24]

* "On that day of October 13, 1917, without remembering the predictions of the children, I was enchanted by a remarkable spectacle in the sky of a kind I had never seen before. I saw it from this veranda…” ― Portuguese poet Afonso Lopes Vieira.[25]

iUseVi

kelly1 wrote: »

Gee, thanks. I wonder though what it takes before people will believe? There was an estimated 50k people who witnessed the (alleged) miracle and it was reported in the "Seculo" newspaper, a paper which was known for its anti-clerical stance.

Do you doubt that the event ever happened or do you believe it was a natural phenomenon?

I personally don't put much faith in people's word. I would have to actually be there to concede that a miracle occurred.

I know a person who thinks he is Elvis. People say all kinds of stuff that isn't true, people see and hear things that aren't actually there. This is a fact.

Yes, I know, I am extremely cynical. :0

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

Do you doubt that the event ever happened or do you believe it was a natural phenomenon?

Well, call me suspicious, but if I were religious, I'd be asking why the creator of the universe decided to manifest himself as an inanimate whirling disc with lots of colors, rather than, say, as a man with a message.

btw, you can get a similar sense of apparent movement if you stare at a lightbulb or any other bright light source for any length of time; takes longer if the object isn't brightly lit, but it still happens. Did none of the tens of thousands of people or the newspaper reporters have a camera and take a good photo? Box brownies were quite common at the time.

kelly1

robindch wrote: »

Well, call me suspicious, but if I were religious, I'd be asking why the creator of the universe decided to manifest himself as an inanimate whirling disc with lots of colors, rather than, say, as a man with a message.

This happened ~2000 years ago.

robindch wrote: »

btw, you can get a similar sense of apparent movement if you stare at a lightbulb or any other bright light source for any length of time; takes longer if the object isn't brightly lit, but it still happens. Did none of the tens of thousands of people or the newspaper reporters have a camera and take a good photo? Box brownies were quite common at the time.

The Wiki article does have a link to a photo but it's not very clear and in black and white of course.

http://www.tarxienparish.org/FatimaSun_13Oct1917.jpg

iUseVi

In addition not every reported seeing the sun "dance, including the children, who reported seeing Jesus, the Virgin Mary, and Saint Joseph blessing the people. Some people only saw the radiant colors. Others saw nothing at all.

How did they know that the apparition was Saint Joseph? Did he have a name tag?

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

This happened ~2000 years ago.

I am aware that this is the belief, but you're avoiding the question

And in any case, christians believe that he turned up in first-century Palestine so that he could deliver amendments to an earlier message. Why not do the same again? Why ignore a great opportunity to deliver a great message, and instead content himself with making it seem to some of the people present that the sun was moving about the place? Seems like a wasted opportunity to me, unless it's to show some a sense of humor?

iUseVi

robindch wrote: »

I am aware that this is the belief, but you're avoiding the question

And in any case, christians believe that he turned up in first-century Palestine so that he could deliver amendments to an earlier message. Why not do the same again? Why ignore a great opportunity to deliver a great message, and instead content himself with making it seem to some of the people present that the sun was moving about the place? Seems like a wasted opportunity to me, unless it's to show some a sense of humor?

You know, just a thought, but with the internet and media being so widespread as they are, I would have thought it a better time for Jesus to appear about now rather than 2000 years ago. I mean think about it, worldwide coverage within a couple of hours.

Akrasia

kelly1 wrote: »

Gee, thanks. I wonder though what it takes before people will believe? There was an estimated 50k people who witnessed the (alleged) miracle and it was reported in the "Seculo" newspaper, a paper which was known for its anti-clerical stance.

What people saw was a phenomenon, but that does not make it a miracle. Religious people tend to shout 'miracle' at everything they can't immediately explain (going back to primitive man worshiping volcanoes and blaming the gods for storms and tsunamis) (look at this video on youtube, it's allegedly of another sun miracle, when in reality, it's just a rubbish camera unable to cope with the intense brightness of the sun http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlPHHl0AjZk )

There are alternative explanations for the event that don't rely on a supernatural entity.

If there was an instance of 'Ball lightning' in a church ceremony 100 years ago it would have been interpreted as a definite sign from god, but now we know that ball lightning is an entirely natural occurance (albeit a very rare one)

Do you doubt that the event ever happened or do you believe it was a natural phenomenon?

Something probably happened, but it was most likely a natural phenomenon.
(millions of people believe they have seen UFOs, the vast majority of these claims are simple mistakes and the rest are probably fraud)

Asiaprod

kelly1 wrote: »

This happened ~2000 years ago.

The Wiki article does have a link to a photo but it's not very clear and in black and white of course.

It also goes on to say

The event was officially accepted as a miracle by the Roman Catholic Church on 13 October 1930. On 13 October 1951, papal legate Cardinal Tedeschini told the million gathered at Fátima that on 30 October, 31 October, 1 November, and 8 November 1950, Pope Pius XII himself witnessed the miracle of the sun from the Vatican gardens

Well if the pope saw it FOUR times it must be true so!!! This is not an attack on your faith, but look at the time scale here.
Original event 1917
Made a miracle 1930
Announced by the Cardinal in 1951 to have been seen by the pope 4 times in 1950.
I am not sure your God is into repeating himself, but Public Relations is eternal.
I would recommend some research here into Sun-dogs. It was IMHO, if it happened, a natural phenomenon. If your God wanted to let his presence be known, I am sure he would have pick some method that would have been indisputable. Just out of curiosity, why do you think the vatican did not release the contents of the messages, since the apparition or event was a public affair surly the contents were also in the public domain?

Akrasia

Asiaprod wrote: »

It also goes on to say



Well if the pope saw it FOUR times it must be true so!!! This is not an attack on your faith, but look at the time scale here.
Original event 1917
Made a miracle 1930
Announced by the Cardinal in 1951 to have been seen by the pope 4 times in 1950.
I am not sure your God is into repeating himself, but Public Relations is eternal.
I would recommend some research here into Sun-dogs. It was IMHO, if it happened, a natural phenomenon. If your God wanted to let his presence be known, I am sure he would have pick some method that would have been indisputable. Just out of curiosity, why do you think the vatican did not release the contents of the messages, since the apparition or event was a public affair surly the contents were also in the public domain?

There are also lots of reports on the internet of people seeing 'the miracle of the sun' at various places around the world at different times. A lot of the people who claim to have seen it are devout believers who made a habit of staring directly at the sun. (not a very good idea)

This is looking more and more like the 'miracle' of speaking in tongues that evangelicals of the more lunatic variety trot out at their shows and indoctrination camps as 'proof' that the holy spirit is talking through them.

Asiaprod

Akrasia wrote: »

This is looking more and more like the 'miracle' of speaking in tongues that evangelicals of the more lunatic variety trot out at their shows and indoctrination camps as 'proof' that the holy spirit is talking through them.

During the early 80s I actually attended a couple of Charismatic meeting and saw this first hand. It was an amazing thing to see. I have no idea to tell the truth what was behind it, but I can say I witnessed the event first hand and it could be repeated. I did like the people who brought me there, but it was not for me.

iUseVi

Asiaprod wrote: »

During the early 80s I actually attended a couple of Charismatic meeting and saw this first hand. It was an amazing thing to see. I have no idea to tell the truth what was behind it, but I can say I witnessed the event first hand and it could be repeated. I did like the people who brought me there, but it was not for me.

It's really not that hard to fake. Simply stop thinking and start talking.

It's been intensely studied. Basically the human brain uses common syllables and puts them together in an arbitrary manner. Thus it sounds different depending on what languages the person has been exposed to.

The syllables that make up instances of glossolalia typically appear to be unpatterned reorganizations of phonemes from the primary language of the person uttering the syllables; thus, the glossolalia of people from Russia, the United Kingdom, and Brazil all sound different from each other, but vaguely resemble the Russian, English, and Portuguese languages, respectively

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolalia

here.from.day.1

Your post provoked an interesting train of thought Akrasia. I however dont think his non/existance will ever be proven.

The fact though that I had enough free time in work to read through and reply to this tread has raised my faith slightly!

robindch

Asiaprod wrote: »

I actually attended a couple of Charismatic meeting and saw this first hand. It was an amazing thing to see.

Likewise. Suffice it to say that it frightened the life out of me -- mass hysteria of quite an unpleasant kind. I'd recommend anybody with the opportunity to see it happening, to do so.

wolfsbane

iUseVi wrote: »

It's really not that hard to fake. Simply stop thinking and start talking.

It's been intensely studied. Basically the human brain uses common syllables and puts them together in an arbitrary manner. Thus it sounds different depending on what languages the person has been exposed to.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolalia

A good analysis. I too have been to such a meeting, and watched several more on video. Some sincere folks pre-programmed to psychological effect, and often manipulated by wolves posing as shepherds. Many not so sincere, happy to be deceived for the false assurance or prospect of health and wealth they might gain.

NOTHING to do with the New Testament gift of tongues, a gift that enabled actual foreign languages to be spoken and understood. When challenged, today's charismatic will tell you we can't recognise them as foreign languages because they are the language of angels.

JimiTime

wolfsbane wrote: »

NOTHING to do with the New Testament gift of tongues, a gift that enabled actual foreign languages to be spoken and understood. When challenged, today's charismatic will tell you we can't recognise them as foreign languages because they are the language of angels.

As far as I remember, there were two types of tongues mentioned in scripture. The ones allowing people to speak in foreign languages, and the ones allowing people to speak the language of the spirit which dwealth inside them. Remember the people thinking the Christians were drunk, due to the tongues?

wolfsbane

JimiTime wrote: »

As far as I remember, there were two types of tongues mentioned in scripture. The ones allowing people to speak in foreign languages, and the ones allowing people to speak the language of the spirit which dwealth inside them. Remember the people thinking the Christians were drunk, due to the tongues?

I can't recall any indication of the Christians in the NT being gifted with anything other than foreign languages. The tongues on the day of Pentecost incident you refer to, where some unbelievers thought the Christians drunk because they were speaking in tongues, were such. They were speaking in the various languages from throughout the Roman empire - as those foreigners whose language was being spoken confirmed:
Acts 2:7 Then they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, “Look, are not all these who speak Galileans? 8 And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born? 9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjoining Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretans and Arabs—we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God.”

It was the unbelievers who didn't speak those languages who thought the brethren were drunk.

JimiTime

wolfsbane wrote: »

I can't recall any indication of the Christians in the NT being gifted with anything other than foreign languages. The tongues on the day of Pentecost incident you refer to, where some unbelievers thought the Christians drunk because they were speaking in tongues, were such. They were speaking in the various languages from throughout the Roman empire - as those foreigners whose language was being spoken confirmed:
Acts 2:7 Then they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, “Look, are not all these who speak Galileans? 8 And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born? 9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjoining Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretans and Arabs—we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God.”

It was the unbelievers who didn't speak those languages who thought the brethren were drunk.

I always thought this myself, but I seem to recall someone pointing out some scriptures to me before about tongues being 'the language of the spirit'. I'll try seek them out. To be clear though, i do agree that the gibberish we hear from some of these evangelical institutions etc, is rubbish IMO. just people being whipped up into a frenzy.

J C

wrote:

Akrasia

If scientists do discover god...

Will he be angry?

A lot of christians here seem to think that god prefers that we believe in him using faith, and that god wants to give us the 'choice' not to believe in him.

If scientists eventually do discover God to be real, and can identify and measure him and conclusively prove with 99% certainty that he was real, would this be gods greatest joy (that his creations progressed so far) or would it ruin his plan that we should all trust in him without fully knowing that he definitely exists?


kelly1
It's not going to happen. Science can only deal with the natural world. I believe God has designed things so that His existence is unprovable. Please don't ask me for a definite answer as to why.

.......a false premise.....and an equally erroneous rebuttal (which accepts the original false premise)!!!!

Firstly, God Created us so that we might KNOW, love and honur Him......so it IS possible to KNOW that He exists....and the Bible Confirms this fact in
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.

Secondly, ID and Creation Science Research has progressed to the point where it has overwhelming evidence for the existence of God.

Thirdly, because God wishes us all to have a personal relationship with Him....and any worthwhile personal relationship MUST be based on the existence of both parties, God is very pleased when proofs for His existence are cited by men.

Fourthly, we can only be saved through faith.....in Jesus Christ.

So we can KNOW that God exists.....but we are saved through FAITH in Jesus Christ's ability and willingness to forgive our sins.:cool:

God knows that we KNOW that He exists.......and He wants us to be humble enough to accept that we are sinners .....and to BELIEVE that He has the power and inclination to forgive our sins......and He also wants us to FREELY love Him!!!:cool:

J C

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I would think that such a thing is beyond science. However, if God where proved to exist there certainly would be a lot of angry people out there.

......God HAS been proven to exist.....and many people simply ignore and/or defy Him!!!!

.....look at Satan.....He also knows that God exists.....but he prefers to oppose Him!!!!

Mark Hamill

J C wrote: »

......God HAS been proven to exist.....and many people simply ignore and/or defy Him!!!!

Wanna show everyone else this proof?

PDN

wolfsbane wrote: »

I can't recall any indication of the Christians in the NT being gifted with anything other than foreign languages. The tongues on the day of Pentecost incident you refer to, where some unbelievers thought the Christians drunk because they were speaking in tongues, were such. They were speaking in the various languages from throughout the Roman empire - as those foreigners whose language was being spoken confirmed:
Acts 2:7 Then they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, “Look, are not all these who speak Galileans? 8 And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born? 9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjoining Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretans and Arabs—we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God.”

It was the unbelievers who didn't speak those languages who thought the brethren were drunk.

"For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit." (1 Corinthians 14:2

I think it would take quite a hermeneutical contortion to make that verse apply to speaking in foreign languages. It expressly states that men cannot understand the speaker in tongues, but only God.

all the stars

If they do prove he exists -

People will say " i was really wrong eh?"
Others will say "Told you so..."
would ponder what follows that sentance, will it be "i was right and ye will all burn in hell" or will it be, "finally now there is never doubt again and peace & harmony can ensue" something tells me maybe less of the latter? perhaps im wrong. Who knows?

Im having an emotional day - excuse any over emotional wording there please

J C

PDN wrote: »

"For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit." (1 Corinthians 14:2

I think it would take quite a hermeneutical contortion to make that verse apply to speaking in foreign languages. It expressly states that men cannot understand the speaker in tongues, but only God.

.....go on and read THE REST of what St Paul that has to say about THESE unknown tongues to which you refer:-
1Co 14:2-6 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. {understandeth: Gr. heareth}
But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?
St Paul is basically saying that somebody speaking in unknown tongues is a waste of time and effort.....and only glorifies himself.....unless he interprets and makes sense of what he is saying!!!!

J C

all the stars wrote: »

If they do prove he exists -

People will say " i was really wrong eh?"
Others will say "Told you so..."
would ponder what follows that sentance, will it be "i was right and ye will all burn in hell" or will it be, "finally now there is never doubt again and peace & harmony can ensue" something tells me maybe less of the latter? perhaps im wrong. Who knows?

Im having an emotional day - excuse any over emotional wording there please

......the good news that Jesus Christ came to save SINNERS hasn't changed with the discovery by Creation Science of the overwhelming scientific evidence for the existence of God......and no true Christian will gloat at the sins or misfortunes of others.

I am an unworthy sinner myself......so far be it from me to gloat about being saved through NO MERIT on my part......but only through the power of Jesus Christ.

..as a Christian I CANNOT judge the eternal destiny of anybody else......but knowing that both God and Hell exist, all I can do is ask humbly and fearfully ask each person to believe on Jesus Christ and be saved..........I can do no more !!!:D

...and it is OK to be emotional.....this fallen World can be very tough place.....
....please accept that Jesus Christ loves you and wants to save you......but the decision to accept His loving forgiveness is entirely up to you.

dan_y

don't be silly. god created scientists.

all the stars

J C wrote: »

......the good news that Jesus Christ came to save SINNERS hasn't changed with the discovery by Creation Science of the overwhelming scientific evidence for the existence of God......and no true Christian will gloat at the sins or misfortunes of others.

I am an unworthy sinner myself......so far be it from me to gloat about being saved through NO MERIT on my part......but only through the power of Jesus Christ.

..as a Christian I CANNOT judge the eternal destiny of anybody else......but knowing that both God and Hell exist, all I can do is ask humbly and fearfully ask each person to believe on Jesus Christ and be saved..........I can do no more !!!:D

...and it is OK to be emotional.....this fallen World can be very tough place.....
....please accept that Jesus Christ loves you and wants to save you......but the decision to accept His loving forgiveness is entirely up to you.

em, i dunno, i dont believe in hell or heaven as you know it so me thinks i will be ok
Truthfully, im not even trying to say he didn't make an apperance on the planet - i'd say he did alright, its just not my path to follow. I mean, even the Muslims acknowledge he was here so, its not just catholics..

Back to waht i said above - i'd bet a penny or 2 that the evangelist types would pull out the marshmallows if God did return.. (for the burning sinners that is) oh well...

PDN

J C wrote: »

.....go on and read THE REST of what St Paul that has to say about THESE unknown tongues to which you refer:-
1Co 14:2-6 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. {understandeth: Gr. heareth}
But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?
St Paul is basically saying that somebody speaking in unknown tongues is a waste of time and effort.....and only glorifies himself.....unless he interprets and makes sense of what he is saying!!!!

If I read what Paul goes on to say, then I see that tongues, when used in public worship, should be interpreted in order to benefit others. That is why there is a spiritual gift of interpretation of tongues listed in 1 Corinthians 12.

Tongues when it is not interpreted is addressed to God (what we normally refer to as 'prayer'). While this does not benefit others in a public worship setting, it is hardly "a waste of time", nor does such prayer only glorify oneself.

Maybe you should keep on reading (instead of cutting off your quote where you did) and take into account Paul's statement that: I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue. (1 Corinthians 14:18-19)

So Paul spoke in tongues a lot, but not in church. In the church he would rather speak to benefit others. The most natural interpretation of this whole passage is that Paul regularly prayed to God in tongues, but in public services preferred to teach people in their own language.