I would say - that God inspired scripture and those scriptures are accurate is a realistic possibility. That consciousness can exist absent of time, space, and energy does not seem to me to be even a logical possibility. Where would it exist? When would it exist? How would it exist? Why would it exist? How could it create space, light, matter and time without it having any energy to do so?
Missing piece in Genesis 5
- Thread starter Omegatime
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
For your assertion that God inspires scripture we need evidence that anyone can examine, not just Christians, and determine that it is true. Thus, we need some non-faith-based evidence for a theistic deity as well as clear evidence as to what is scripture. Currently the only evidence for what is scripture are statements by humans that those specific humans, but not all, accept these specific works as scripture, but other humans could look at the same evidence and see nothing.
Now if you would care to delve deep into consciousness studies, rather than skim the surface, you will find much evidence that is hard to explain away. Skimming the surface though you can find lots of counters by skeptics who will take a few easy to dismiss cases, find reason to dismiss them and claim that such disproves all, just as they do with a religion they do not like. Or else they will change the account, claiming that their version is the accurate one and trusting that the casual looker will not dig deep enough to find the original version.
But such takes serious work, it is far easier to define what is true and then look for evidence to support one's initial assumption. With regards to the Bible this can be done by finding the appropriate verses and cite them in a string without any comment about why they are relevant, a common tactic, noting that they "obviously" mean what the poster wishes them to and carefully placing the blame on anyone who challenges rather than address the actual challenges.
1 Corinthians 1:22-24
King James Version
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
King James Version
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
The effectiveness of scripture to achieve what they promise to achieve in the lives of those who humbly and sincerely put them into practice, including me (i.e. lives transformed by putting faith in the One the scriptures point to as Saviour and Lord, the Christ, Jesus of Nazareth) is the evidence for me that the Bible is true.
There is no non-faith-based evidence in any truth-claim by any world view. People claim things are evidence either because they believe in points to the conclusion they arrive at, or because they want it to point to the conclusion they arrive at. There is no certainty in the universe, only best guesses. Faith in the God of Jesus Christ frees us to act on our best guesses knowing that there is someone we can trust to work even our mistakes for our good.
If you can convey your gnosis about consciousness and the evidence for your gnosis in words a common man can grasp, I am all ears. What allegedly non-faith-based evidence are you relying on?
The promised from scripture changes in people's lives are well-documented in the lives of people of all most, if not all religions, as well as people who profess no specific religion. Since these changes can occur without any reference to Christian scripture, how does the existence of these changes not disprove you claim that the change comes from Christian scripture? And if you are not aware of the documented changes, that is just a sign of your ignorance, not the lack of proof.
Eben Alexander is one of many authors who describe such events. Anita Moorjani is another.
I did not say it is proof for everyone. I said it is proof to me. I met Jesus through hearing the reports about Him from scripture and after putting my faith in Him, He has proven faithful to His word. I am well aware that people can change for the better without believing the Christian scriptures. I can make a motor that works by following the instructions in a manual. The fact that someone can build a different motor using a different manual does not logically imply that my manual is therefore false, and vice versa. The essential principles undergirding the motors may be the same, but one motor may appear to perform better than the other. God’s grace is poured out upon all people - even non-Christians. His principles work, even when they are applied by non-Christians who do not believe the Bible is true.
Do you have any knowledge that does entail you to believing that knowledge is true? All knowledge is faith-based. Certainty is merely 100% faith: 0% unbelief. But anyone who has lived enough to develop a degree of wisdom realises that the evidence for any claim is partial, and someone can come up with reasons for doubting the evidence proves conclusively the claim. I don’t believe you have any non-faith-based proof for God or your theories on consciousness. If you do, I would love to see it. You have insinuated you have some non-faith-based proof, but you have not actually identified it yet.
You are correct that all knowledge is faith based and thus partial, but the issue becomes based on what? Do you base your knowledge on only the experiences you have had or do you learn from the repeated and replicable experiences of others. Or do you take a third option and pick and choose which replicable experiences you will accept and which non-replicable ones you will accept to replace replicable ones?
Note, the more often one chooses replicable experiences, the more intellectually honest one is being Are you seeking to base your knowledge in the closest approximation of truth that we humans can find in our physical existence or are you defaulting to deciding what is true in your own mind, and then seeking reasons to justify your choice and willfully blinding yourself to the absolute truth?
I choose to examine the data that can be replicated and let that, as much as possible, guide me towards the absolute truth that cannot be achieved as opposed to declaring that I have found it and then seeking to justify my claim by whatever means, including a supposed written source. The written record might well serve as a good guideline, but it can also deceive if overly relied on.
Remember, there are four aspects of any communication, what is meant to be shared, what is shared, what is perceived and what is understood. Very rarely, if ever, do even two of these things correspond.
I base my beliefs on a mixture of my own experiences and others’ reports of their experiences, many of which can and have been replicated. Same as you.
I am still waiting to see the non-faith-based evidence you claim to have. Do you actually have any? Or not?
How familiar are you with recent investigations into Consciousness Studies? I know some people look at what is readily available and do not investigate whether the information is being accurately presented but that just says something about their investigations. I have recently seen one person raise objections, but who was totally unaware that every objection he raised was already acknowledged and addressed in the literature, and that in fact some of his objections, while outwardly valid were actually contradicted by the evidence, well this could happen, ignoring that in the experiments they actively looked to see if it did and found zero evidence of it occurring.
Now if you are unaware of the evidence and all the support behind it, what value is it to offer it up unless you will actively investigate to confirm or disprove it? I don't like what it implies is not a worthwhile response and would make it a waste of my time to present it specifically to you.
So, you appear to want to tear down my faith while offering nothing in exchange except mere assertions that you have a good alternative, but it’s too technical for you to explain it in plain language. I’m calling your bluff. I doubt you have anything coherent to offer. But let’s see what you can come up with.
1 Corinthians 1:22-24
King James Version
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
King James Version
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
Let's run a very specific question. There is one series of experiments but two different statements about what the results are, and both statements are true, but imply two different things. Which would you choose, the one that fits your expectations or the one that defies them.
Now a group of scientists think they have figured out how to influence reportedly random outcomes without any physical means. They calculate how many examples they need to be 99.99% certain that the results will fit with expectations of randomness if not influenced. Then they run 300 experiments, all with enough examples to achieve the 99.99% certainty of randomness. They run 100 while trying to produce results exceeding chance, 100 trying to reduce results from chance and 1oo without adding any influence, purely random. Now if the results suggest there was influence, it challenges what you want to believe.
The scientists report that they got positive results, when they tried to exceed chance, they exceeded chance, when they tried to score below chance, they scored below chance and when they did not try to influence, they scored chance. The skeptic though reports that they ran 300 experiments and the results averaged within chance. Who are you willing to listen to, both statements are true, but the skeptics statement does not threaten your understanding of reality.
I do not seek to "tear down" your faith, only you can do that. But I am willing to present evidence that maybe faith is misdirected and allow others to decide if they are brave enough to change their faith to something that better fits reality.
Did you perform those experiments or replicate them - with those results? If you did, tell us about it and we can see if we can replicate them.
I believe they are well above both of our abilities, but they have been replicated at multiple universities., sometimes with positive results, sometimes with negative. But an understanding of what is plausibly going on explains the mixed results as it would deal with uncontrollable factors.
But I notice that you wish to deflect, how willing are you to have your worldviews challenged, or are they too sacred to be looked at.
I am very willing to have my worldview challenged. So, go ahead. But it sounds like you are doing exactly what you are criticising others for. Have you done the experiments yourself and replicated the results? Or are you relying on “reports” you have read or heard?
I am doing just as you seem to like to do. I am reading the reports of others and comparing what they say to what I can observe on my own. That is unless you physically walked with Jesus and the disciples/apostles some 2000 years ago so that you have first-hand knowledge rather than knowledge based on what some other person recorded. And attributing your insights to God is no different than the Muslims or Buddhist who make similar statements after accounting for differing religious terms. No one can prove the source of their divine insights or prove the falsity of someone else's, the truth or falsity can be asserted, and often is, but assertions are not proof, they are only statements of faith which may or may not be correct.
But if you truly want to examine the evidence, you might start by reading "Margins of Reality" by Robert Jahn and Brenda Dunne. That work was written about halfway through their study, but it begins to give you an insight into things that are truly different than you would expect to find.
I am not going to spend time reading a book merely because you recommend it, when you have so far given me absolutely zero rational reasons for doing so. How have you benefitted from reading this book? What changes has reading that book and believing it brought about in your life? What reports are there of changes that believing that book has made in anyone’s life?
Thank you for spelling out all your requirements in advance. What additional requirements will you trot out if I address these? As I said earlier, you deflect well, never actually commit, never respond to a direct question, just deflect.
I have better things to do. Experts in multiple fields, including biblical scholarship, have fewer requirements than you do, and show far more knowledge to begin with.
1 Corinthians 1:22-24
King James Version
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
King James Version
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
So, it appears that this book you recommend has made no reported positive impact on your or anyone else’s life. So, what is the point of my reading it? I alredy believe people have the ability to affect events at a distance. That is what my and others' effectual fervent prayer does.