Evidence for God from Science

In my opinion and experience:

1. Who is God? - God is the Ultimate Supernatural Power
2. What is Gos? - God is supernatural energy
3. Where is God? - God is in the whole universe

4. When was God "born"? - at the beginning of light
5. Who "gave" God? - the super natural energy in the whole universe
6. What was before the beginning of light? - dark and supernatural energy
7. Why did we have God? - by accident at the special status of supernarural energy (like Brownian movement)

What do you think about my thought? (thanks)

1) agreed
2) no God is spirit
3) no God transcends space and time although is free to enter our reality as he did with Jesus.
4) no God is eternal.
5) no God is the essential being. No one gave God his power otherwise that thing would be God.
6) no see answers 2-5.

1. Who is God? - God is Spirit, THE source of EVERTHING
2. What is God? -See above
3. Where is God? - The is no "where" that can be applied to God, God is "where" he wants to be.
4. When was God "born"? - God is eternal, time as we know it is not something that can be applied to God.
5. Who "gave" God? - God always was, Eternal and self-sustaining.
6. What was before the beginning of light? - God.
7. Why did we have God? - Not sure what you mean here...

I think if you accept that God is eternal, immaterial, and necessary, then most of your questions will be partially answered. Can we have a full understanding, no, but we can get started in the right direction.

narnia4 wrote:I think if you accept that God is eternal ...

But Silvertusk said "no God is eternal"?

sandy_mcd wrote:

narnia4 wrote:I think if you accept that God is eternal ...

But Silvertusk said "no God is eternal"?

I'm pretty confident he meant "no, God is eternal"

sandy_mcd wrote:

narnia4 wrote:I think if you accept that God is eternal ...

But Silvertusk said "no God is eternal"?

It is apparent that the context meant that God is eternal, and it is clear that Silvertusk doesn't always use commas, from what posts of his I've read so far. Me, being a "Grammar Nazi" of sorts, tends to have an eye for noticing when someone is being lazy with their typing. Also, note how Silvertusk hasn't been using much Capitalization. He capitalized "God", yet didn't capitalize the first word of his response.

Not to be harsh or critical of him, though. It just irks me just as much as "text talk" and poorly-handled 1337.

But eh, on the subject, Silvertusk was not denying attributes of God when he was writing his statement as a reply to Stone.
Instead, just subtract the "no" or alternately put a comma after "no" to understand what he meant.

Also, keep in mind, the fact that Silvertusk is British. That alone, should show that we need to cut him some slack.

RickD wrote:Also, keep in mind, the fact that Silvertusk is British.

Ah, if I had but known ...

FlawedIntellect wrote:Me, being a "Grammar Nazi" of sorts, tends to have an eye for noticing when someone is being lazy with their typing.

I'm glad you're a Grammar Nazi! My mother tongue is French and I've been wondering about the quality of my written English lately. Let me know if something I write seems...off. You have my permission to correct me.

FL

Me, being a "Grammar Nazi" of sorts, tends to have an eye for noticing when someone is being lazy with their typing.

If you are a true grammar nazi, you would have noticed that you should have started the sentence with "I", not "Me". "Tend", not "tends", would be proper grammar, as well. And, "someone" is singular, so you should have typed, "with his typing."

FlawedIntellect, I'm afraid it may be time to hang up your "grammar nazi" shoes.

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

FlawedIntellect wrote:Me, being a "Grammar Nazi" of sorts, tends to have an eye for noticing when someone is being lazy with their typing.

I'm glad you're a Grammar Nazi! My mother tongue is French and I've been wondering about the quality of my written English lately. Let me know if something I write seems...off. You have my permission to correct me.

FL

FL, you might not want to take grammar advice from FlawedIntellect. It seems his grammar nazi skills are a little "off".

FlawedIntellect, have you thought of changing your name to, "FlawedGrammar"?

And Stone, I agree with Silvertusk here:

1) agreed
2) no God is spirit
3) no God transcends space and time although is free to enter our reality as he did with Jesus.
4) no God is eternal.
5) no God is the essential being. No one gave God his power otherwise that thing would be God.
6) no see answers 2-5.

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:I'm glad you're a Grammar Nazi! My mother tongue is French

Would that be the Vichy dialect?

RickD wrote:

Me, being a "Grammar Nazi" of sorts, tends to have an eye for noticing when someone is being lazy with their typing.

If you are a true grammar nazi, you would have noticed that you should have started the sentence with "I", not "Me". "Tend", not "tends", would be proper grammar, as well. And, "someone" is singular, so you should have typed, "with his typing."

FlawedIntellect, I'm afraid it may be time to hang up your "grammar nazi" shoes.

Pardon my oversight and use of colloquialism amidst mixed formality. Enjoy the irony. But eh, regardless, I'm more of a "nazi" when it comes to punctuation and capitalization. I still have a bit of work to do with other areas of Grammar, though I suppose you can call me a "Grammar Hypocrite" as well, if you find it to be amusing.