PROOF that GOD Exists......

[Zaehet Strife]

Meditation is either deep thinking about a particular subject, or deep no-thinking about anything (just being).

Prayer is either wishful thinking (hoping for something to happen, or not to happen), asking for forgiveness to something contrived from our imagination (god) because we do not have the courage to forgive ourselves, asking something other than ourselves to forgive others so we do not have to, or giving thanks to something other than ourselves or other people/natural events that occur that appear to be in our favor (giving ourselves a mystical sense of importance in an inherently meaningless existence).

That's just my take.

 

[afrawfraw]

If your caught talking to yourself, make sure it's a minister, not a psychiatrist. C'mon, that shit is FUNNY!

 

[crazyhazey]

Meditation is either deep thinking about a particular subject, or deep no-thinking about anything (just being).

Prayer is either wishful thinking (hoping for something to happen, or not to happen), asking for forgiveness to something contrived from our imagination (god) because we do not have the courage to forgive ourselves, asking something other than ourselves to forgive others so we do not have to, or giving thanks to something other than ourselves or other people/natural events that occur that appear to be in our favor (giving ourselves a mystical sense of importance in an inherently meaningless existence).

That's just my take.

im gonna go with that one, i dont really say Om or whatever when i meditate, i just try to clear my mind and take deep breathes through my nose. i think everyone has a different method though, im not one to define what is or isnt meditation. btw kaendar who was the so called scientist who compared religion and science? im still eager to find out who this so called scientist is, sounds like straight bullshit to me. he probably wont answer me but its worth a try i guess.

 

[eye exaggerate]

im gonna go with that one, i dont really say Om or whatever when i meditate, i just try to clear my mind and take deep breathes through my nose. i think everyone has a different method though, im not one to define what is or isnt meditation. btw kaendar who was the so called scientist who compared religion and science? im still eager to find out who this so called scientist is, sounds like straight bullshit to me. he probably wont answer me but its worth a try i guess.

...hey-zey Here's a clip from wiki to mull over.

Catholic theologians contend that natural reason being a God-given capacity, is not opposed to the Church's teachings, and hence never contradict each other.[SUP][1][/SUP] The role of Catholic Church, throughout history, has therefore led to progress of science and intuitive reasoning. This view is contested by secular historians, who contest that the question has been historically varied from active and even singular support from the Church[SUP][citation needed][/SUP] to bitter clashes (with accusations of heresy) in the Middle Ages[SUP][citation needed][/SUP], and back once again to a reserved support from the Church. The differences primarily arise due to the different definitions given to science. While secular philosophers consider 'science' in the restricted sense of natural science, theologians have viewed science in a very broad sense, as given by Aristotle's definition that science is the sure and evident knowledge obtained from demonstrations.[SUP][2][/SUP] In this sense, science comprises the entire curriculum of university studies, and Catholic Church has claimed authority in matters of doctrine and teaching of science. With the gradual secularisation of Europe and North America, including though not limited to traditionally Catholic countries, the political power and influence of the Church over matters pertaining to scientific research has gradually faded. Where in the early days of scientific research science and theology of various kinds were considered very much intertwined, it is generally accepted[SUP][citation needed][/SUP] throughout 21st Century society that the elucidations and processes of the empirical sciences and the theological claims of religions where they cross over with scientific claims (such as concerning the genesis of the universe and/or humanity) are either fully independent of each other.[SUP][citation needed][/SUP]

 

[crazyhazey]

...hey-zey Here's a clip from wiki to mull over.

Catholic theologians contend that natural reason being a God-given capacity, is not opposed to the Church's teachings, and hence never contradict each other.[SUP][1][/SUP] The role of Catholic Church, throughout history, has therefore led to progress of science and intuitive reasoning. This view is contested by secular historians, who contest that the question has been historically varied from active and even singular support from the Church[SUP][citation needed][/SUP] to bitter clashes (with accusations of heresy) in the Middle Ages[SUP][citation needed][/SUP], and back once again to a reserved support from the Church. The differences primarily arise due to the different definitions given to science. While secular philosophers consider 'science' in the restricted sense of natural science, theologians have viewed science in a very broad sense, as given by Aristotle's definition that science is the sure and evident knowledge obtained from demonstrations.[SUP][2][/SUP] In this sense, science comprises the entire curriculum of university studies, and Catholic Church has claimed authority in matters of doctrine and teaching of science. With the gradual secularisation of Europe and North America, including though not limited to traditionally Catholic countries, the political power and influence of the Church over matters pertaining to scientific research has gradually faded. Where in the early days of scientific research science and theology of various kinds were considered very much intertwined, it is generally accepted[SUP][citation needed][/SUP] throughout 21st Century society that the elucidations and processes of the empirical sciences and the theological claims of religions where they cross over with scientific claims (such as concerning the genesis of the universe and/or humanity) are either fully independent of each other.[SUP][citation needed][/SUP]

correct me if im wrong but this is basically what ive been saying, the church attempted to have a part in science when answers simply couldnt be found(like in the Middle Ages when they killed Plato), but nowadays due to advances in reasoning and technology the church has become separated from science.

 

[afrawfraw]

correct me if im wrong but this is basically what ive been saying, the church attempted to have a part in science when answers simply couldnt be found(like in the Middle Ages when they killed Plato), but nowadays due to advances in reasoning and technology the church has become separated from science.

I hope you didn't just say churches attempted to be scientific!? They never have. They have only embraced scientific work if it boosts their cause. Or are you going to sit there and propose that a church, built and operated based on preconceived notions, would seek out contradictory evidence which proves them false, then publish said works, are you?

Or attempted, but failed miserably?

 

[crazyhazey]

I hope you didn't just say churches attempted to be scientific!? They never have. They have only embraced scientific work if it boosts their cause. Or are you going to sit there and propose that a church, built and operated based on preconceived notions, would seek out contradictory evidence which proves them false, then publish said works, are you?

notice i said "attempted" hahaha they utterly failed. and hell no, if they could they would probably kill people for proving them wrong(like Plato).

 

[afrawfraw]

notice i said "attempted" hahaha they utterly failed. and hell no, if they could they would probably kill people for proving them wrong(like Plato).

Phew, OK. I'll call the wagons off,lol.

 

[crazyhazey]

Phew, OK. I'll call the wagons off,lol.

oh shit you had wagons? hahaha

 

[afrawfraw]

oh shit you had wagons? hahaha

Yes. Nice fellows in white. They love to add new members. Their "Members Only" jacket is white also, with extra long sleeves for cold nights. But don't worry, they tie them up behind you so they won't drag on the floor.

 

[eye exaggerate]

I hope you didn't just say churches attempted to be scientific!? They never have. They have only embraced scientific work if it boosts their cause. Or are you going to sit there and propose that a church, built and operated based on preconceived notions, would seek out contradictory evidence which proves them false, then publish said works, are you?

Or attempted, but failed miserably?

...Philoponus

...Byzantine Science

 

[afrawfraw]

...Philoponus

...Byzantine Science

Philoponus=He was posthumously condemned as a heretic by the Orthodox Church in 680-81 because of what was perceived of as a tritheistic interpretation of the Trinity!
Byzantine Science=Not a church.

Confusion=Someone who is of faith practicing science, is not science condoned by a church. Imagine a sermon where the minister ordains that God wants you to question how and why the world exists. Tee hee.

 

[eye exaggerate]

Philoponus=He was posthumously condemned as a heretic by the Orthodox Church in 680-81 because of what was perceived of as a tritheistic interpretation of the Trinity!
Byzantine Science=Not a church.

Confusion=Someone who is of faith practicing science, is not science condoned by a church. Imagine a sermon where the minister ordains that God wants you to question how and why the world exists. Tee hee.

...was birthed of a church. (church=group of people)

...your ability to question is God-given, imo. The point of my post was to tone down the idea that the 'church' has done nothing for science. That's just plain wrong, man. No offense, eh?

 

[afrawfraw]

...was birthed of a church. (church=group of people)

...your ability to question is God-given, imo. The point of my post was to tone down the idea that the 'church' has done nothing for science. That's just plain wrong, man. No offense, eh?

Church=Group of people with a preconceived idea or ideas.
Group=Group
Cite specific examples when a Church has ORDAINED or ORDERED research blindly. Doing 1 sided research and interpreting it is not science.

Hebrews 10:35-38
[FONT=arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif]Isaiah 26:3-4[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif]2 Thessalonians 3:6
2 Thessalonians 2:15
Exodus 20:1-26

Your opinion that God wants you to question him is argued here by, well, GOD. [/FONT]

 

[eye exaggerate]

Church=Group of people with a preconceived idea or ideas.
Group=Group
Cite specific examples when a Church has ORDAINED or ORDERED research contradictory to the Bible, please.

...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Jaki

"The theory ofevolution was propounded before Charles Darwin's time, by Lamarck (1809) and Geoffroy de Saint-Hilaire. Darwin, in 1859, gave it a new form by endeavouring to explain the origin ofspecies by means of natural selection. According to this theory the breeding of new speciesdepends on the survival of the fittest in the struggle for existence. The Darwinian theory of selection is Darwinism—adhering to the narrower, and accurate, sense of the word. As a theory, it is scientifically inadequate, since it does not account for the origin of attributes fitted to the purpose, which must be referred back to the interior, original causes of evolution. Haeckel, with other materialists, has enlarged this selection theory of Darwin's into a philosophical world-idea, by attempting to account for the whole evolution of the cosmos by means of the chance survival of the fittest. This theory is Darwinism in the secondary, and wider, sense of the word. It is thatatheistical form of the theory of evolution which was shown above—under (2)—to be untenable. The third signification of the term Darwinism arose from the application of the theory of selection to man, which is likewise impossible of acceptance. In the fourth place, Darwinism frequently stands, in popular usage, for the theory of evolution in general. This use of the word rests on an evident confusion of ideas, and must therefore be set aside."

...they're still testing ideas to this day. Always will - they understand the only 'static, or unmovable' thing is God. I wonder why that is 'bad' or 'unworthy'? Also, they do correct errors publicly, often.

...keep in mind this is catholic. How much do you know about the catholic worldview? Just an honest question, have you studied it beyond media coverage? Sometimes it seems that the views people have about it are as narrow as a razor, but as broad as a paint brush at the same time. Not saying that's you, to be clear.

 

[afrawfraw]

...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Jaki

"The theory ofevolution was propounded before Charles Darwin's time, by Lamarck (1809) and Geoffroy de Saint-Hilaire. Darwin, in 1859, gave it a new form by endeavouring to explain the origin ofspecies by means of natural selection. According to this theory the breeding of new speciesdepends on the survival of the fittest in the struggle for existence. The Darwinian theory of selection is Darwinism—adhering to the narrower, and accurate, sense of the word. As a theory, it is scientifically inadequate, since it does not account for the origin of attributes fitted to the purpose, which must be referred back to the interior, original causes of evolution. Haeckel, with other materialists, has enlarged this selection theory of Darwin's into a philosophical world-idea, by attempting to account for the whole evolution of the cosmos by means of the chance survival of the fittest. This theory is Darwinism in the secondary, and wider, sense of the word. It is thatatheistical form of the theory of evolution which was shown above—under (2)—to be untenable. The third signification of the term Darwinism arose from the application of the theory of selection to man, which is likewise impossible of acceptance. In the fourth place, Darwinism frequently stands, in popular usage, for the theory of evolution in general. This use of the word rests on an evident confusion of ideas, and must therefore be set aside."

...they're still testing ideas to this day. Always will - they understand the only 'static, or unmovable' thing is God. I wonder why that is 'bad' or 'unworthy'? Also, they do correct errors publicly, often.

...keep in mind this is catholic. How much do you know about the catholic worldview? Just an honest question, have you studied it beyond media coverage? Sometimes it seems that the views people have about it are as narrow as a razor, but as broad as a paint brush at the same time. Not saying that's you, to be clear.

Once again, a catholic participating in science, is not scientific research by a church. Furthermore, this mans work (I've read one of his works) strives to bridge Catholicity with Science. I'm looking for an ORDER, from a CHURCH, asking for blind studies or experiments.

When a Church starts actively perusing science, I expect an "Edited" version of the bible from that church, written in Mathematics. Simply stating, "We do not disagree with your findings, but that's GODs' work. Your just not seeing the connection." is not participating in science. Your argument proposes that a church is free to announce that the words of GOD are false. This can not happen. So a "Scientific Church" is an oxymoron.

 

[eye exaggerate]

Once again, a catholic participating in science, is not scientific research by a church. Furthermore, this mans work (I've read one of his works) strives to bridge Catholicity with Science. I'm looking for an ORDER, from a CHURCH, asking for blind studies or experiments.

...I've said my peace here. There's so much material to read in what I've posted and it seems you've chosen not to read it. Again, no offense.

 

[afrawfraw]

Christian Science is a system of RELIGIOUS thought and practice derived from the writings of Mary Baker Eddy and the BIBLE!

To be scientific, one must be prepared to accept they are wrong. This violates scripture you see. Starting with the attitude that, "My mind is open to all possibilities, except the notion that GOD or GODS may not exist", is not scientific at all. One must be prepared to admit everything they proposed was wrong. A person of faith is bound, and can not state such a position.

Your examples are individuals trying to explain GOD using science. Science tries to explain science, using science.

 

[afrawfraw]

...I've said my peace here. There's so much material to read in what I've posted and it seems you've chosen not to read it. Again, no offense.

No offense taken. I'm not angry, or offended. I just was wondering why you claimed Churches supported science, and then posted individuals. Except for Byzantine Science, which was a community, not a church. Take care.

As for the one idea that God is unmoveable. This is the key! Not "wrong" or "unacceptable". Just unscientific.

 

[eye exaggerate]

Christian Science is a system of RELIGIOUS thought and practice derived from the writings of Mary Baker Eddy and the BIBLE!

To be scientific, one must be prepared to accept they are wrong. This violates scripture you see. Starting with the attitude that, "My mind is open to all possibilities, except the notion that GOD or GODS may not exist", is not scientific at all. One must be prepared to admit everything they proposed was wrong. A person of faith is bound, and can not state such a position.

Your examples are individuals trying to explain GOD using science. Science tries to explain science, using science.

...well sure, but now what? Dude, I don't understand your vehement distaste for all things 'god'. Of course science proves science with science - if it didn't it would be like sending a kid to baseball practice with a bowling ball ...??