Evidence for God from Science

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Katabole wrote:
That is partly an explanation why the Bible states in a number of places no one in the flesh can see God and live. The light energy would be so intense it would destroy flesh.

I always felt that the two following verses were applicable in part to describe God's character. The New Testament verse can be understood literally. The Old Testament verse is more mysterious. Both can be applied to understanding the light energy which formed the shroud image.

Psalm 104:2 Who covers yourself with light as with a garment, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain.

1 John 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

I know this is a little off topic but if the fundamental building blocks of the universe are just energy, does that make the universe God in some way and we are a part of him as he is a part of us? It sounds a little pantheistic (sort of not really) to me, but if God is pure energy(will?) then it kind of all makes sense in a way. What is energy, is it material or immaterial??

This is by far my most favourite thread to read, it always has me thinking.

Thanks for the bit on the folded cloth, very interesting.

As the sustainer of creation, God's energy is the "building block" of all the exists.
That doesn't make Him PART of the universe, but it's sustainer.

Danieltwotwenty wrote: It sounds a little pantheistic (sort of not really) to me, but if God is pure energy(will?) then it kind of all makes sense in a way. What is energy, is it material or immaterial??

You should read some books by theoretical physicist Richard Feynman, Daniel. He spent 60 years of his life studying energy at the quantum mechanics and electrodynamic level. He was in involved with the Manhattan project which produced the first atomic bomb and many of his friends were top ranked physicists, who were specialists in their own field. He claimed that we can see the effects of energy, we can write equations that explain what energy does, we can make predictions about the release of energy but his conclusion after years of study on the subject, was that he simply did not know what energy actually is. In fact, he said no one knows what energy is. Maybe you should ask Hana what energy is? I'm sure she will give you a similar answer.

Remember several years ago the Catholic Church allowed several companies to TEST the cloth of the Shroud of Turin to see how old it is? Well, the findings came back and all three samples taken from the cloth were concluded that it was not old enough to have held Jesus. The cloth only tested 600 or so years old. Jesus was cruxified 2000 years old. Making the Shroud a forgery.
Thoughts??

Susan wrote:Remember several years ago the Catholic Church allowed several companies to TEST the cloth of the Shroud of Turin to see how old it is? Well, the findings came back and all three samples taken from the cloth were concluded that it was not old enough to have held Jesus. The cloth only tested 600 or so years old. Jesus was cruxified 2000 years old. Making the Shroud a forgery.
Thoughts??

I realize that this is a long thread, but I'm fairly certain this issue has been addressed already.

IIRC, the piece of cloth they took to test was from the bottom corner. The shroud was rescued from a fire and parts of it got burned, so it had to be patched up. The piece they tested was one of these patched pieces and I believe it was verified as such by observing that the section they pulled from had indeed been sewn on. I'm sure bippy will correct me here, but I don't remember the exact details of it.

Rob wrote:

Susan wrote:Remember several years ago the Catholic Church allowed several companies to TEST the cloth of the Shroud of Turin to see how old it is? Well, the findings came back and all three samples taken from the cloth were concluded that it was not old enough to have held Jesus. The cloth only tested 600 or so years old. Jesus was cruxified 2000 years old. Making the Shroud a forgery.
Thoughts??

I realize that this is a long thread, but I'm fairly certain this issue has been addressed already.

IIRC, the piece of cloth they took to test was from the bottom corner. The shroud was rescued from a fire and parts of it got burned, so it had to be patched up. The piece they tested was one of these patched pieces and I believe it was verified as such by observing that the section they pulled from had indeed been sewn on. I'm sure bippy will correct me here, but I don't remember the exact details of it.

Pretty much it Rob.

I wonder what percent of the people who feel that science proves their shroud is authentic turn around and say that science has no evidence for evolution.

Audie wrote:I wonder what percent of the people who feel that science proves their shroud is authentic turn around and say that science has no evidence for evolution.

.5%

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:I wonder what percent of the people who feel that science proves their shroud is authentic turn around and say that science has no evidence for evolution.

.5%

More sarcasm.

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:I wonder what percent of the people who feel that science proves their shroud is authentic turn around and say that science has no evidence for evolution.

.5%

More sarcasm.

Sorry, I cannot help myself. It's in my blood.

My last blood test results had the ingredients of my blood:

Water
Blood cells
Carbon dioxide
Glucose
Hormones
Proteins
Pepperoni pizza
Sarcasm

Audie wrote:I wonder what percent of the people who feel that science proves their shroud is authentic turn around and say that science has no evidence for evolution.

So if one accepts scientific evidence for evolution then one must also accept the scientific evidence for the authenticity of the shroud, don't you think?

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:I wonder what percent of the people who feel that science proves their shroud is authentic turn around and say that science has no evidence for evolution.

.5%

More sarcasm.

Sorry, I cannot help myself. It's in my blood.

My last blood test results had the ingredients of my blood:

Water
Blood cells
Carbon dioxide
Glucose
Hormones
Proteins
Pepperoni pizza
Sarcasm

If the plan is to never be taken seriously, it works.

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:I wonder what percent of the people who feel that science proves their shroud is authentic turn around and say that science has no evidence for evolution.

So if one accepts scientific evidence for evolution then one must also accept the scientific evidence for the authenticity of the shroud, don't you think?

Fair is fair. Dont you think so?

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:I wonder what percent of the people who feel that science proves their shroud is authentic turn around and say that science has no evidence for evolution.

So if one accepts scientific evidence for evolution then one must also accept the scientific evidence for the authenticity of the shroud, don't you think?

Fair is fair. Dont you think so?

Oh absolutely. I'm just not convinced that you do.

Audie wrote:I wonder what percent of the people who feel that science proves their shroud is authentic turn around and say that science has no evidence for evolution.

You've got a major hang up there Audie. Sure that evolution isn't your religion.

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:I wonder what percent of the people who feel that science proves their shroud is authentic turn around and say that science has no evidence for evolution.

So if one accepts scientific evidence for evolution then one must also accept the scientific evidence for the authenticity of the shroud, don't you think?

Fair is fair. Dont you think so?

Oh absolutely. I'm just not convinced that you do.

Fair is fair; I've no reason to think you are objective.