By what means, do you KNOW the answer to that age old question?

What more would there be to offer as an explanation (which was previously given)? To repeat that explanation: The evidence and or arguments offered are deficient in strength to compel my mind to accept them as true. You do expect people to be honest and straight forward don't you?

 

No, I have always understood that in some instances intransigent ignorance is required to maintain one's faith. I don't care that when specific knowledge is presented to you, you refuse to recognize it for what it is.

You hide behind semantics on the one hand, but refuse to play when those very same semantics render your comprehension incorrect.

I suggest you go in for an overhaul, your "compellor" seems to be out of whack with reality.

I don't know how I can state it more clearly. Neither flat earthers nor young earthers arrive at their whacky beliefs thru science, as you suggested in your question to me.

But deflect away, it so much easier than actually having to accept uncomfortable facts.

 

Tell me, Incorporeal, what do you see other posters doing here? Do you see them saying "that doesn't compel me", or do you see them explaining WHY it doesn't compel them? That's what you're not providing. The why. Are you unable to communicate why arguments don't compel your own mind? Are you so unaware of your own thoughts, that you have no idea why arguments don't compel you? Do you not have standards that need to be met for you to be convinced?

I don't expect it from you anymore. How is your "reasoning" any different from simply saying "No" to an argument like a child would? Your explanation provides no more reasoning then simply shaking your head at an argument. Deficient in strength? What the hell does that even mean. Can you elucidate on WHY it's deficient in strength? What is it missing?

 

1: I am not others.
2: I am completely able.
3: I am completely aware of my own thoughts.
4: Yes I have standards for that purpose.
5: Because I am not a child in the context you are using it.
6: Yes! Deficient in strength.
7: Because you did not provide the proper ingredients.
8: Evidence and or argument that is sufficient to compel my mind to accept it.

Are you a mind reader? Do you know the future? Are you 100% sure of what will happen in the year 2019 at 4:47 PM EST at all the scientific laboratories across the globe? If not, then you don't know if something will be presented that will compel your mind to accept that new assertion or evidence as true. So what makes you think that I should know what will compel my mind to accept any of your arguments or evidence as true, when you have as yet not presented anything that has had such a compelling effect upon my mind? In that science motivated mind of yours, you should realize that upon peer review, if the given argument or evidence does not compel the mind of those peers that are doing the review, that the argument or evidence will be rejected.

Let me give you an example of how that works in the scientific community:
"evidence Test results and/or observations that may either help support or help refute a scientific idea. In general, raw data are considered evidence only once they have been interpreted in a way that reflects on the accuracy of a scientific idea."
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/glossary/glossary_popup.php?word=evidence
Well, it works essentially the same way in this mind of mine. Your raw data can only be considered as evidence once they have been interpreted in a way that reflects the accuracy and the truth of the scientific idea. So, go look for some more evidence or formulate another argument and repeat until such time as the "raw data" or argument can be interpreted by my mind as worthy of being accepted as 'true'.

 

Their extinction was not due to failure to adapt to God's or nature's reality. They were oppressed and exterminated in a political/economic/religious power struggle. Their spiritual philosophy interfered with popular support of the dominating materialistic establishment.

 

You mean those Gnostic in 325AD, though.

I mean all Gnostics, that if they are wrong, there ideas will lead in directions which do not survive.

In the 325AD case, the Gnostics disappeared because the Christians knew they must accept only what wa the actual Gospels, and the Gnostic writings were avoided:

Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

 

Gnosticism was apparently hearing voices that were coming from the subconscious mind.
Freud called these a "slip of the Libido."

The problem we must see here is that the inner mind does direct much of our thinking, and we all rely upon the archetypes to carry out activities we ourselves command.
Christianity tells us that the genetically reproduced Unconscious mind inside us is the source of Truth, which it has stored after experiencing thousands of years of living.
That is the one voice we need build a personal relationship with.

And, we need recognize that the Devil (Anima) and Satan (Libido), etc, are also voices which do not always tell us the truth.

 

The Gnostics were not wrong about the idea of God/Christ to be sought within the individual, as there are some passages in the Bible that support this. Opposing content is just propaganda convenient for the agenda subsequent to 325AD.

What were the Gnostics wrong about? There were a number of variations among Gnosticiism, but what comes to mind is their radical view of the present God being the bad guy who drove away the Good God.

The theme of involution/evolution, violent creation/

Storm coming on. I'll have to break off.

 

(continued)...Bolts from above have moved on, and the rest of the kill zone is passing.

.....violent creator vs. loving God of the return flow... are awareness of reality attributed to the Gnostics, but the mainstream establishment prefers disempowered polyannas who have been convinced that salvation is something bestowed by subscribing to a savior. So, did Gnosticism inhibit something valuable that you attribute to Christianity in the intervening post above?

 

No, but what a ludicrous comparison.

Like I said, these are not parallel. Of course I may not "know" with certainty what will compel my mind, but I can certainly make predictions for the future based off of 1) my past experiences and 2) the standards I set for being compelled by evidence or argumentation.

Again, it's strange that you don't think we can predict what types of argumentation or evidence would compel us to a conclusion. Are you also unsure of what kind of food will be appetizing to you in the future, since apparently you're unable to use past experience to make that type of prediction?

Right, but not with a shake of the head. The peer review process is made for digesting, and if need be, dismantling the argument made in a paper. Scientists don't just shake their heads, shrug their shoulders, and say "Nah, that didn't compel me". They actually have reasons for why the evidence provided wasn't sufficient.

Looks to me as if you're admitting that you're having trouble interpreting raw date or arguments, then. And, given your track record, it doesn't seem that you're able to even muster a rebuttal to evidence provided to you. Again, how is your method of argumentation any different than a child simply shaking his/her head "No"? Your "explanation" as to why you aren't convinced is simply an ad nauseum copy and paste of the definition of "evidence" you have chosen to herald.

 

For one, they opposed the Trinity name which Rev 3:12 stated:

Rev. 3:12 Him that overcometh, (who transcends beyond the common scriptural misunderstandings of the denominational churches) will I, (the good shepherd of Truth, i.e.; truth in the sense of an ideal or concept), make a pillar, (an example for others forever, as I did Rev Martin Luther King), in the temple of (the ever unfolding almighty Reality, i.e.), my God, (the First Cause of the creation), and he, (who is such a pillar), shall go out no more, (i.e.; he becomes a saint):and I, (Jesus), will write, (in 325 AD, at the Council of Nicaea) upon him, (now called Christian), the name of my God, (God of the Living who is this almighty Reality to which all life must adapt to become extinct), and the name of the city of my God, (Christianity), which is the New (cube shaped) Jerusalem, (i.e.; which is the Sukkah or Booths that all Jews are required to live inside at least on Tabernacles every year:[Zech 14:19; Rev 21:16]), which cometh down out of the heaven (stretching across the whole Roman World, the city),... of my God (a virtual Most Holy Place, now re-located [2King 6:20]): and I will write upon him my new name, (Trinity).

 

The Gnostics said things which denied that Truth was the exact image of Reality.
They opposed what Gen 1:26 said even if they never noticed that contradiction:

Gen. 1:26 And God, (Father Nature, i.e.; Reality), said, Let us, (Truth and Reality), make man, (through the process of gradual evolution, ending in the finished Adam of Jesus),... Let us make man, (as a reflection of Reality, in his mind, able, through Truth, to immanently reflect the "I am" of this existence), IN OUR IMAGE (of Truth and Reality):
let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

 

Oh, right.
The whole culture of the Roman World was changed, and these people and all others who were pagans disappeared.
Rev 6:12-17.

 

To sum up all of your arguments above: I use rational thinking which is inspired by theologic instructions given by the Holy Spirit.

More simply put; Your choice of man-made logic (as opposed to theologic) does not lead to a path of righteousness in the eyes of God. Being led by the spirit of God does not necessarily include being ruled by man-made logic.

I also find it interesting that you cannot show where any scientific idea has been presented regarding the existence of God. Please show me the 'raw data'.

 

None of that sums up my arguments. Where do you deal with my criticism of your examples false parallel? Where do you deal with my criticism of your attempt at saying you are doing what happens during the peer review process? This isn't a summation, it's an avoidance.

Please give any sort of evidence that theologic is a "different type of logic" that is somehow outside of the realm of man-made logic. Please give evidence that it does not lead to righteousness in the eyes of God. Seems like you're trying to make your opinions sound like facts. Isn't this what you just criticized me for doing?

This was never even the topic of our conversation. You randomly stated that somehow having an inkling as to what type of arguments would compel your mind was parallel to knowing what would happen on a specific day, at a specific time, in numerous locations. Absolutely, utterly ridiculous. Along with the argument that the peer review process is in anyway similar to what you're doing. And what do you do when I make these arguments, the same that I've made before? The argument that these parallels you're drawing are not actually equatable is thrown to the side while you try to take the conversation in an entirely different direction. Could you be more deceitful in your actions?

- - - Updated - - -

"(through the process of gradual evolution, ending in the finished Adam of Jesus)"

Where is this stated explicitly in the Bible? It's certainly not in any Bible I've ever read.

 

Nobody actually knows God exists. The people who claim he does simply do so out of a sense of hope.

 

Malarky. Further inquiry reveals that the Trinity concept was originated by Valentinus, a Gnostic and major heretical target. The establishment's persistent charge of heresy was based on objection to habitual citing of sources outside of preferred scripture (Gospels etc.), especially sources such as Plato and aspects of NeoPlatonism. Thus the Gnostics augmented their spiritual knowledge with philosophy. The establishment demanded exclusive adherence to acceptable scripture.

The Gnostics were not much worse than the multitudes of early Christian creeds that flourished before the establishment corralled them into a standard religion. Those creeds were feuding amongst themselves over semantics, interpretations, and selective emphasis.

 

Those things are also correct.
But what I said was the true.
In 325 AD, Gnostics opposed the idea of Trinity.

What you call "a multitude of early Christians" was actually 12 different groups which differed slightly in what they understood about Christ.
Together, they represented the prophesied 144,000 men who together made one giant church for Christians the only one in the whole Roman Empire:

////


Rev. 7:5 Of the tribe of Judah, (the early Christian Ebionites), were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben, (the early Christian Arianians), were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad, (the early Christian Montanism), were sealed twelve thousand.

Rev. 7:6 Of the tribe of Asher, (the early Christian Anomians), were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Nepthalim, (the early Christian Gnostics), were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Manasses, (the early Christian Adoptionism of Modalism), were sealed twelve thousand.

Rev. 7:7 Of the tribe of Simeon, (the early Christian Adoptionism of Dynamic Monarchianism)), were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Levi, (the early Christian Semi-Arianian Macedonianism), were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Issachar, (the early Christian Patripassianism-modalists), were sealed twelve thousand.

Rev. 7:8 Of the tribe of Zabulon, (the early Christian Melchisedechian-Monarchians), were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Joseph, (the early Christian Monasticism) were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Benjamin, (the early Christian Marcionism), were sealed twelve thousand.

 

I was referring to the Arians, Martionites, Marionites, Jacobites, Carpocratians, Ebionites, etc.

 

Intuition, 1:58:30-2:28: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUyRW8gu4dI

This guy was really onto something.

 

Good video.. enjoyed it very much,,downloaded it so that I can study at my leisure. "your own personal power" = "intuition"

 

To determine whether something is knowable one must first determine the parameters of what that something is.

In this case the topic is about asking the question is it possible to know whether a GOD exists.

But we have not defined what a GOD would be.

Without this...we have no way of knowing.

One thing for certain....a GOD is not going to exist in any matter described by ancient religious texts.

Why not?

The Universe and Multiverse simply is not that insane or illogical.

AboveAlpha

 

Though "Multiverse" has been given a definition, "
[h=2]mul·ti·verse[/h] (mŭl′tə-vûrs&#8242n. The collection of parallel universes that comprise all of reality in some quantum mechanical and cosmological theories."

A multiverse has never been *realized* in the physical realm.

realized: "re·al·ize
v. re·al·ized, re·al·iz·ing, re·al·iz·es
v.tr.1. To comprehend completely or correctly.

2. To bring into reality; make real: He finally realized his lifelong ambition to learn how to play the violin."


I don't believe that the concept of a 'Multiverse' is any better comprehended by the scientific community as "God" has been comprehended by the scientific community. Of a certainty, a "Multiverse" has not been made "real."

 

The topic has been discussed, debated in its intensity and wholeness many times we will at the best of our ability answer your question.

There is a way to know God exist based on the historical records just like the computer the inventor of the computer made it possible by creating an actual computer that once was only a dream. With the coming of Jesus Christ, God revealed himself to us through Jesus existence, his encounters with the Pharisees, the Romans, the Jews has been well noted and recorded. For others Jesus was a holy man a prophet, for some he was a brave man, for his followers he is the Son of God based on the events and his preaching that would lead to his Crucifixion. For your computer to go on existing you need to safe guard it maintain it the records it is in the memories in the computer that holds all the records or else it will be lost forever same with God, God through Jesus Christ and through the Bible everything has been actually put in records for people in the future may know his existence.

For atheist they claim God does not exist are based on their own lack of authenticated information all they have are guess work and distortion of history. Christians accept history if Jesus Christ did not resurrect there will be no Christianity and there will be no True God. Jesus Christ life and crucifixion, the Apostles, saints and thousands of 1st generation Christians did not imagine God they all gave up all earthly materials including their lives they have nothing to gain because God is real. It is one thing to keep repeating a lie to make it true it is another to accept truth for what it is there is nothing to lie about truth in fact all attempts to destroy or distort truth about Jesus Christ has all been well recorded and documented.

God is unknowable until the coming of Jesus Christ we get to know God even in our limited capacity through Jesus Christ.
We can know God in our limited capacity through recorded factual events in history without recorded history we will never know.

Stored it in your mind, spirit and heart and you will know that what is recorded in written history God is real and he exist. The Bible is timeless it does not required electronic devices for it to work.

 

It comes down to evidence science has explored supernatural claims and studied the results of parapsychology the one group actually doing research and mainstream science and have not demonstrated the validity of any supernatural phenomenon therefore I assert since the supernatural is unproven by default deities are disproven since they are also by definition supernatural to. I don't have to disprove deities just disprove the supernatural at this time and science has. This could change in the future.