Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote:

jlay wrote:reality itself is NOT subjective. It is objective.
PS, all you've stated is that our perception of reality is subjective. But this doesn't negate whether reality is objective.
A blind person is going to have a different perspective on reality than myself, but it doesn't change what reality actually is.

For example, water will boil at a certain temp given certain factors. let's say you lack the capacity to sense heat. It doesn't change the reality of whether the water will or will not boil. Perception doesn't CHANGE reality. If it did, then yes reality would be subjective.

Reality is objective yes BUT OUR reality is and always will be base don perception and as such, it is subjective.
Water boils at 100 C HERE, it will boil under different conditions and temperature somewhere else of course and that is the reality of water boiling, what that reality means to YOU and to ME may be very different depending on how we perceive boiling water.
You view that perception doesn't change what reality is is based on what? who YOU perceive reality.
200 years ago reality was that man can't fly and space travel is 100% fantasy and yet, what is our reality today? what will it be tomorrow?
Reality tells us that once we are dead, we are dead BUT we know/believe that is not the case and it especially want the case for a certain person almost 2000 years ago.
What reality actually is is based on what we believe reality to be at any given time.

Paul you are conflating perception and reality and thus robbing the term 'reality' of its meaning. REality is what is. Truth is what corresponds to reality, not what corresponds to perception. My view that perception doesn't change reality is based on facts. Your 200 year analogy is flawed. For example, Newton discovering gravity didn't invent gravity. Columbus discoving the americas didn't make them pop into existance. Man inventing the airplane doesn't mean perception determines reality. That is some faulty logic.
So, reality is NOT based on what we beleive. If I believe in the giant spaghetti monster, it doesn't suddenly exist.
Math does not define reality, it interprets reality. The equation 2+2=4 is made up of representative tokens. But those tokens represent objective reality. You can't successfully fly a man to moon based on your subjective reality. Either the orbits, gravity and various other laws of physics are uniform reality, or they are not.

jlay wrote:You can't successfully fly a man to moon based on your subjective reality. Either the orbits, gravity and various other laws of physics are uniform reality, or they are not.

I would go even further and state that we would have to actually know reality (epistemologically), otherwise we wouldn't be able to make any sense of it, much less send a man to the moon.

jlay wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

jlay wrote:reality itself is NOT subjective. It is objective.
PS, all you've stated is that our perception of reality is subjective. But this doesn't negate whether reality is objective.
A blind person is going to have a different perspective on reality than myself, but it doesn't change what reality actually is.

For example, water will boil at a certain temp given certain factors. let's say you lack the capacity to sense heat. It doesn't change the reality of whether the water will or will not boil. Perception doesn't CHANGE reality. If it did, then yes reality would be subjective.

Reality is objective yes BUT OUR reality is and always will be base don perception and as such, it is subjective.
Water boils at 100 C HERE, it will boil under different conditions and temperature somewhere else of course and that is the reality of water boiling, what that reality means to YOU and to ME may be very different depending on how we perceive boiling water.
You view that perception doesn't change what reality is is based on what? who YOU perceive reality.
200 years ago reality was that man can't fly and space travel is 100% fantasy and yet, what is our reality today? what will it be tomorrow?
Reality tells us that once we are dead, we are dead BUT we know/believe that is not the case and it especially want the case for a certain person almost 2000 years ago.
What reality actually is is based on what we believe reality to be at any given time.

Paul you are conflating perception and reality and thus robbing the term 'reality' of its meaning. REality is what is. Truth is what corresponds to reality, not what corresponds to perception. My view that perception doesn't change reality is based on facts. Your 200 year analogy is flawed. For example, Newton discovering gravity didn't invent gravity. Columbus discoving the americas didn't make them pop into existance. Man inventing the airplane doesn't mean perception determines reality. That is some faulty logic.
So, reality is NOT based on what we beleive. If I believe in the giant spaghetti monster, it doesn't suddenly exist.
Math does not define reality, it interprets reality. The equation 2+2=4 is made up of representative tokens. But those tokens represent objective reality. You can't successfully fly a man to moon based on your subjective reality. Either the orbits, gravity and various other laws of physics are uniform reality, or they are not.

Reality IS what it IS.
Great, what IS IT then?
What is reality?

Kenny wrote:I realize not all Christians believe in the Trinity, but for those who do I was hoping someone could explain it to me. I understand they say 3 persons but 1 God, so is it like God the father, Jesus, and the Holy spirit are a fraction of a complete God and when combined they equal the entire God? Or is it like 1 God who wears different hats depending on who he is dealing with sorta like how I am a brother to my siblings, a son to my parents and an employee to my boss at work? Or is it something else? Please explain.

Ken

If someone from an isolated community had never seen a "look alike person" or twins before, they may not believe your word. Then imagine if you told them about identical twins, and triplets, and even more in one batch? Now what if you told them about two or three people that are closer than, and more than, identical twins, - all the same and yet individuals? It's quite pleasing and wonderful. Someone mentioned their wife before, which is interesting, because they can be so close and know each other so well that they both know what the other will say or think in different circumstances. The disciples communicated with Christ, but they were also in touch with the Spirit and the Father at the same time. Jesus said, if you have seen me, you have seen the Father. When Jesus left for heaven, the disciples had the Spirit with them, so Christ was even closer than when He sat beside them.
By this time the person in the isolated village is totally confused.

Starhunter wrote:

Kenny wrote:I realize not all Christians believe in the Trinity, but for those who do I was hoping someone could explain it to me. I understand they say 3 persons but 1 God, so is it like God the father, Jesus, and the Holy spirit are a fraction of a complete God and when combined they equal the entire God? Or is it like 1 God who wears different hats depending on who he is dealing with sorta like how I am a brother to my siblings, a son to my parents and an employee to my boss at work? Or is it something else? Please explain.

Ken

If someone from an isolated community had never seen a "look alike person" or twins before, they may not believe your word. Then imagine if you told them about identical twins, and triplets, and even more in one batch? Now what if you told them about two or three people that are closer than, and more than, identical twins, - all the same and yet individuals? It's quite pleasing and wonderful. Someone mentioned their wife before, which is interesting, because they can be so close and know each other so well that they both know what the other will say or think in different circumstances. The disciples communicated with Christ, but they were also in touch with the Spirit and the Father at the same time. Jesus said, if you have seen me, you have seen the Father. When Jesus left for heaven, the disciples had the Spirit with them, so Christ was even closer than when He sat beside them.
By this time the person in the isolated village is totally confused.

The idea that two separate people can look similar or even alike, or that two people who live together for such a long time become familiar with each other to the extent mentioned, is not difficult to understand. But to say 3 persons equal 1 being sounds like claiming that A+B=C; but C-B does not equal A and claiming it is a mystery thus you can’t do the math to support the claim.

Ken

If you want a mathematical equation for the trinity, then it would be: 1 x 1 x 1 = 1
A Triune being is a self-sustaining being.
That all 3 persons share the same nature and attributes and are in perfect union is both easy and hard to grasp.
To me I see it this way:
If God is singular, then He can't be love because that love would be self-love, which is inferior to other-centered love.
So if God is self-love that means a being that is other-centered is superior and thus, the self-loving God can't be God.

PaulSacramento wrote:If you want a mathematical equation for the trinity, then it would be: 1 x 1 x 1 = 1
A Triune being is a self-sustaining being.
That all 3 persons share the same nature and attributes and are in perfect union is both easy and hard to grasp.
To me I see it this way:
If God is singular, then He can't be love because that love would be self-love, which is inferior to other-centered love.
So if God is self-love that means a being that is other-centered is superior and thus, the self-loving God can't be God.

So you say there is only one God, but he is plural?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:If you want a mathematical equation for the trinity, then it would be: 1 x 1 x 1 = 1
A Triune being is a self-sustaining being.
That all 3 persons share the same nature and attributes and are in perfect union is both easy and hard to grasp.
To me I see it this way:
If God is singular, then He can't be love because that love would be self-love, which is inferior to other-centered love.
So if God is self-love that means a being that is other-centered is superior and thus, the self-loving God can't be God.

So you say there is only one God, but he is plural?

Ken

Plural?
Dude, I am not even sure what that means.

Look at it this way:
If you think of God in a certain way BUT are able to conceive of a being that is "better" than that God, then THAT God isn't God at all.

If I think of God as Love BUT that God loves himself because, well, there is nothing else for him to love ( which would be the case if The Father created the son and at one point there was no son), then the moment I can conceive of a being that loves others and all His love is centered on others then THAT God is better, right?

God is a term we use to define a being, it is not His name or His identity.
God is what God is and what he is BUT not WHO He is, just like you are human but that doesn't give me any clue about WHO you are, understand?

The Trinity doctrine tries to define the nature of God AND the relationship between Father, Son and HS.

Is The Father God? Yes.
IS the son begotten of the Father? Yes, which makes the Son God as well ( what is begotten has the same nature as what begets)
IS the HS the spirit of God? Yes, then the HS is God ( it can't be anything else can it?)

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:If you want a mathematical equation for the trinity, then it would be: 1 x 1 x 1 = 1
A Triune being is a self-sustaining being.
That all 3 persons share the same nature and attributes and are in perfect union is both easy and hard to grasp.
To me I see it this way:
If God is singular, then He can't be love because that love would be self-love, which is inferior to other-centered love.
So if God is self-love that means a being that is other-centered is superior and thus, the self-loving God can't be God.

So you say there is only one God, but he is plural?

Ken

Plural?
Dude, I am not even sure what that means.

Plural means more than one. Is God more than one?

Ken

Is Human more than 1?

PaulSacramento wrote:Is Human more than 1?

No! A human is 1 person. Do you believe this is the same for God?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Is Human more than 1?

No! A human is 1 person. Do you believe this is the same for God?

Ken

I din't say A human, I said is Human more than 1?

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Is Human more than 1?

No! A human is 1 person. Do you believe this is the same for God?

Ken

I din't say A human, I said is Human more than 1?

No, there are billions of humans on Earth.

Ken

No Kenny.
Human is not something we put a number on, it is a references to qualities and attributes and nature.
God is a term that doesn't mean 1 or 2 or 3, it simply refers to qualities we attribute to the supreme being.
That being can be 1 or biune or triune or the WHOLE universe.
To Christians, God is Triune, a union of Father, Son and HS, a being that is 1 union of 3 persons.
And since God is the highest possible being that can be conceived then why CAN'T He be Triune?
Nothing is impossible for God.

PaulSacramento wrote:No Kenny.
Human is not something we put a number on, it is a references to qualities and attributes and nature.
God is a term that doesn't mean 1 or 2 or 3, it simply refers to qualities we attribute to the supreme being.
That being can be 1 or biune or triune or the WHOLE universe.
To Christians, God is Triune, a union of Father, Son and HS, a being that is 1 union of 3 persons.
And since God is the highest possible being that can be conceived then why CAN'T He be Triune?
Nothing is impossible for God.

Okay so if we don't put a number on human, and we don't put a number on God, and we concludde human consists of 4 billion persons; and God consists of 3 persons, doesn't that imply polytheism?

Ken