Evidence for God from Science

He ends up living with men on earth doesn't He? So let' say both worlds co exist, or maybe there is not two worlds, or maybe one replaces the other, either way we need a renovation.

Starhunter wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Starhunter wrote:Revelation chapters 21 and 22, is a popular reference. What do you recon about it?

Its not a reference of heaven, only of earth. How a pure earth without corruption would look like.

Where is the New Jerusalem before it comes to earth? Is it not in heaven now?

No its not. If it is in heaven (I am treating heaven as a spirit place not physical), it exists in God's mind or thought. It exists only as potential not in actual. It can actualize when God would want but until then...

Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me.
2 “In My Father’s house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you.
3 “If I go and prepare a place for you,

To be honest I don't know what Jesus meant exclusively. Generally if he meant that he and us could be together, then I am fine with it. But if we are going to say that he did mean homes, as in homes we use than I have questions, like:
And if there are many homes already up there then why does Jesus needs to prepare more?
Didn't Jesus know who was saved or wasn't so he could have built the homes already?

Starhunter wrote:He ends up living with men on earth doesn't He? So let' say both worlds co exist, or maybe there is not two worlds, or maybe one replaces the other, either way we need a renovation.

There is only one world, which we live in...which other world are you talking about? or did you mean heaven?

My only objection to it, even in the first place, is when the philosophy is held and the reality isn't. For example, we are at the center of the universe, this is philosophizing science. Reality is, we do not know. There is a difference. That is all I am trying to say here.

Gotcha. philosophy not based on reason, but instead on (believe you said something like) 'imagination', is improper. Agreed.


As far as the continuation of the thread:
I always thought God was prepairing a new reality for us and spiritual beings, the new heaven and earth. That will replace the reality we are in, and the supernatural reality as it is now.
The reality we are in is timed, and I believe exists for the purpose of reasoning creatures existing.
Once that purpose is fulfilled (getting rid of the nasty evil produced by reasoning beings which is through salvation and refinement, justice and wrath), then the purpose of this reality will be complete.
Then enters the next reality those in the book of life will be a part of.

Mallz wrote:

My only objection to it, even in the first place, is when the philosophy is held and the reality isn't. For example, we are at the center of the universe, this is philosophizing science. Reality is, we do not know. There is a difference. That is all I am trying to say here.

Gotcha. philosophy not based on reason, but instead on (believe you said something like) 'imagination', is improper. Agreed.
.

Actually faith in the current status quo on universal beginnings adheres to the Copernican philosophy as their scientific base.

95% mystery discovered in recent scientific history...now there's something to believe in!

This should be a light bulb moment for big bangers and Copernican worshippers that like to ridicule those that support galactocentricity.

I get confused with the term metaphysics because there are so many theories under that name, science publications have much more consistency.

I wanted to wind up my contributions to this thread, because I have given a few keys from the Bible for further thought.

Just want to touch on the relation between the spiritual and physical.

It is paradoxical, the spiritual or Divine are beyond human comprehension, except for the character and personality of God as revealed in Christ, scripture and nature. As well as anything decent and good in life.

The spiritual, as some of you have already pointed out, is eternal, supernatural etc.
The physical or material world as we know it, the Bible commonly calls it temporary, changeable, corruptible, wearing out like a garment, etc
And in contrast Jesus states about the permanency and power of His word, "heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not"

So is it fair to say that the stronger, more powerful spiritual things are more solid than matter?

It seems like a weird question, because we are used to thinking of ghosts when it comes to "spirit."

Here is an illustration that may help to reverse that thought process.

(By the way, a lot of ancient science is understanding things in reverse, because that is the way they really are)

Matter, is more space than particles, and particles themselves can be made up of smaller bits, which also demand more space than 'solid bits.' almost like miniature space time weaving, forces fields and fluxes, rather than tiny bricks - even though nearly all their characteristics and behaviors indicate bricks.

So matter is 'solid' to other matter. But what is it to the Divine by comparison?

Think of a 3D image or hologram and your hand passing through that image, which is more real and powerful? the image or your hand and person?

Can anyone in the image know of your hand? Can it be proven? What about you? Can you change the image, speed it up, skew it, dim it?

That's about how it really is, the Divine reality and matter an effect by comparison.

We have not even begun to talk about How God Creates. But you can connect with God yourself, by asking and reading the Bible.
"The fear if the Lord is the beginning of knowledge."

Mazzy wrote:

Mallz wrote:

My only objection to it, even in the first place, is when the philosophy is held and the reality isn't. For example, we are at the center of the universe, this is philosophizing science. Reality is, we do not know. There is a difference. That is all I am trying to say here.

Gotcha. philosophy not based on reason, but instead on (believe you said something like) 'imagination', is improper. Agreed.
.

Actually faith in the current status quo on universal beginnings adheres to the Copernican philosophy as their scientific base.

95% mystery discovered in recent scientific history...now there's something to believe in!

This should be a light bulb moment for big bangers and Copernican worshippers that like to ridicule those that support galactocentricity.

I am not ridiculing you. I simply stated that we are not in a position to say galactocentricity is true. We do not know. IMO, it seems quite unlikely.

neo-x wrote:

Mazzy wrote:

Mallz wrote:

My only objection to it, even in the first place, is when the philosophy is held and the reality isn't. For example, we are at the center of the universe, this is philosophizing science. Reality is, we do not know. There is a difference. That is all I am trying to say here.

Gotcha. philosophy not based on reason, but instead on (believe you said something like) 'imagination', is improper. Agreed.
.

Actually faith in the current status quo on universal beginnings adheres to the Copernican philosophy as their scientific base.

95% mystery discovered in recent scientific history...now there's something to believe in!

This should be a light bulb moment for big bangers and Copernican worshippers that like to ridicule those that support galactocentricity.

I am not ridiculing you. I simply stated that we are not in a position to say galactocentricity is true. We do not know. IMO, it seems quite unlikely.

Actually galactocentrism seems very likely, as that is what is observed and is no more philosophizing than big bangers. You are correct in that we don't know for sure, but that means big bangers are also philosophers.

Researchers spend much time trying to show how what is observed can't be the reality. Copernican principle worshippers have to knock themselves out with much nonsense to uphold their faith in the earth not being special, our address in the universe not being special and mankind not being special. What is factual information to date is that indeed the earth is special, we see galaxies evenly distributed all around us, and only one species of the mega millions that have lived on earth is interested in making sense of the universe and building telescopes. The only evidence that most credentialled can offer is statistical probabililies and 95% mysteries.

I have posted this on another thread but I'll post it again here for your information.

"(Reuters) - Astronomers have discovered the largest known structure in the universe - a group of quasars so large it would take 4 billion years to cross it while traveling at speed of light. The immense scale also challenges Albert Einstein's Cosmological Principle, the assumption that the universe looks the same from every point of view, researchers said."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/ ... 1S20130112

I don't think you have any idea just how many well credentialed researchers are loosing faith in current cosmological theories.

Mazzy wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Mazzy wrote:

Mallz wrote:

My only objection to it, even in the first place, is when the philosophy is held and the reality isn't. For example, we are at the center of the universe, this is philosophizing science. Reality is, we do not know. There is a difference. That is all I am trying to say here.

Gotcha. philosophy not based on reason, but instead on (believe you said something like) 'imagination', is improper. Agreed.
.

Actually faith in the current status quo on universal beginnings adheres to the Copernican philosophy as their scientific base.

95% mystery discovered in recent scientific history...now there's something to believe in!

This should be a light bulb moment for big bangers and Copernican worshippers that like to ridicule those that support galactocentricity.

I am not ridiculing you. I simply stated that we are not in a position to say galactocentricity is true. We do not know. IMO, it seems quite unlikely.

Actually galactocentrism seems very likely, as that is what is observed and is no more philosophizing than big bangers. You are correct in that we don't know for sure, but that means big bangers are also philosophers.

Researchers spend much time trying to show how what is observed can't be the reality. Copernican principle worshippers have to knock themselves out with much nonsense to uphold their faith in the earth not being special, our address in the universe not being special and mankind not being special. What is factual information to date is that indeed the earth is special, we see galaxies evenly distributed all around us, and only one species of the mega millions that have lived on earth is interested in making sense of the universe and building telescopes. The only evidence that most credentialled can offer is statistical probabililies and 95% mysteries.

I have posted this on another thread but I'll post it again here for your information.

"(Reuters) - Astronomers have discovered the largest known structure in the universe - a group of quasars so large it would take 4 billion years to cross it while traveling at speed of light. The immense scale also challenges Albert Einstein's Cosmological Principle, the assumption that the universe looks the same from every point of view, researchers said."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/ ... 1S20130112

I don't think you have any idea just how many well credentialed researchers are loosing faith in current cosmological theories.

I am really not concerned about whose faith is placed where, show me evidence. I don't think you have any idea how unconnected this all is to what you are claiming. Special earth and quasars and dark matter?

95% mysteries still don't prove a center of universe earth. This is, as I said before, an arrogant self congratulatory view.

More importantly, this is just a God of the gaps argument.

neo-x wrote: I am really not concerned about whose faith is placed where, show me evidence. I don't think you have any idea how unconnected this all is to what you are claiming. Special earth and quasars and dark matter?

95% mysteries still don't prove a center of universe earth. This is, as I said before, an arrogant self congratulatory view.

More importantly, this is just a God of the gaps argument.

What do you mean by evidence? The only EVIDENCE available is what is being observed. What is observed is galaxies evenly distributed all around our Milky Way. What scientists need to do now, particularly atheist ones, is come up with as much hubris as they can invent to overturn the obvious.

I have posted the Temple and Smoller galactocentric model several times. It is at least as good as this Big Bang nonsense. If I post it again will you actually look at it instead of patting yourself on the back because you worship the Copernican philosophy and think that's clever?

https://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~temple/!! ... b/cv83.pdf

This is just one model that explains what is observed. It does not require dark matter and places the Milky Way at or near the centre of the universe. Of course atheists in particular have a melt down because such a claim challenges their own philosophy and faith.

As far as the thread topic is concerned, we already have observed and confirmed evidence both from physics and the particle accelerator that matter can be created instantly from Energy, and therefore I know the basis of how God created both the universe and mankind.

Mazzy wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Mazzy wrote:

Mallz wrote:

My only objection to it, even in the first place, is when the philosophy is held and the reality isn't. ...

.
Actually faith in the current status quo on universal beginnings adheres to the Copernican philosophy as their scientific base.
This should be a light bulb moment for big bangers and Copernican worshipers that like to ridicule those that support galactic-centrality.

I am not ridiculing you. I simply stated that we are not in a position to say galactocentricity is true. We do not know. IMO, it seems quite unlikely.

Actually galactic centrism seems very likely, as that is what is observed and is no more philosophizing than big bangers. You are correct in that we don't know for sure, but that means big bangers are also philosophers.

Researchers spend much time trying to show how what is observed can't be the reality. Copernican principle worshipers have to knock themselves out with much nonsense to uphold their faith in the earth not being special, our address in the universe not being special and mankind not being special. What is factual information to date is that indeed the earth is special, we see galaxies evenly distributed all around us, and only one species of the mega millions that have lived on earth is interested in making sense of the universe and building telescopes. The only evidence that most credentialed can offer is statistical probabilities and 95% mysteries.

Until now I have not imagined earth to be central in the universe. But I have a hunch that what you have said may be true.

For one because I believe heaven is located in our galaxy about 1500 light years away.

Unless God does not mind being off to the side, as in Jerusalem, even the New Jerusalem is said to be the center of the earth, yet it is on the sides of the north. And the position of our solar system is way off center in our galaxy. Psalms 48:2.

I've just reread the whole thread,
and I don't like the way I wrote... not really listening, throwing subjects out with no introduction or consideration of other points of view. Especially Mazzy, he was quite right about my bull to the red flag attitude.

I felt at the time that the more aspects on the topic I could put out there, the easier it will be for others to piece it together,
forgetting how difficult it was for me to accept, and many of the objections and questions were worth more than what I traded.

Anyway, the bottom line, which many Christians already know by faith, is that nature is upheld by the power of God, continuously and intimately, you might say.

On the other hand, in the absence of the belief in God, nature is considered to be self existent, and not dependent on any spiritual source.

It is very interesting how the spiritual world is connected with the physical, by powers created by God.
Nature shows spiritual lessons, and the spiritual realm reveals how nature exists.

This connection with God on a natural level can be proof of our spiritual connection with heaven, so that what we see and experience can be a constant source of evidence of God's power and presence. Not to replace faith, but to add to it.

Starhunter wrote:
For one because I believe heaven is located in our galaxy about 1500 light years away.

May I ask where you came up with this?

RickD wrote:

Starhunter wrote:
For one because I believe heaven is located in our galaxy about 1500 light years away.

May I ask where you came up with this?

I'll post some on that topic in the thread "Details of Heaven."

Starhunter said

Until now I have not imagined earth to be central in the universe. But I have a hunch that what you have said may be true.

For one because I believe heaven is located in our galaxy about 1500 light years away.

Unless God does not mind being off to the side, as in Jerusalem, even the New Jerusalem is said to be the center of the earth, yet it is on the sides of the north. And the position of our solar system is way off center in our galaxy. Psalms 48:2.

Indeed, what is observed appears to support galactocentrism. I suspect God did not locate the earth at the centre of the Milky Way because that would be a terrible address and not conducive to life with a black hole supposedly sucking in everything around it.

Just for your info Starhunter, I am a she, not a he.