P
- Status
A
AmosTown
Guest
Is this a bait and switch?
It certainly sounds like, from the thread title, you’re going to offer “Scientific proof” of the existence of the Trinity.
But I haven’t seen that “Scientific proof” yet.
Are you going to offer it now?
OK.I light the quotes around the word “scientific” where you do show that it’s not really scientific. It’s the same way that I’m considered “handsome”
If you want to use this thread as a biblical reference for those believe in Christ that the Trinity is true, that’s ok; but to say something has been scientifically proven you have to demonstrate that and not merely asserted (repeatedly and without a whiff of science).
The theory of evolution is considered to be real science.
There is no proof, yet people consider it science.
If you want scientific proof of existence of God, then there are two questions that must be asked (I was hoping they would be asked). . they are:
What is God?
What science?
The science used to formulate the Darwinism?
The science of evolution?
High energy Physics ?
Mathematics?
I am free to say that I believe in a creator. I believe the Creator created me in His image and likeness. I am a person, therefore God is a person.
or a scientist may say
There is light and there is darkness. There is up and there is down. There is positive and there is negative. There is motion and there is rest. There is wet, there is dry. Therefore it is reasonable and logical to assume:
There is Time and there is Timeless-ness, there is Space, and there is Space-less-ness, there is Energy (e.g., e=hv) and there is Energy-less-ness, there is Matter, and there is Matter-less
So which science applies to God and how do we define Him?
If you consider St. John, he states God is Word. What is Word? We know scientifically that (spoken) word is (vibratory). We know the energy of sound is vibration of matter. Words exist. Sound exists. Scientifically proven.
St. John, and the church fathers assert God is Light. What is Light? We know Light exists ( consciousness could not exist without light). It too can be scientifically proven to exist.
We say “God is Light”.
Now, if someone proves scientifically that light exists, then is that proof that God exists?
Next you will ask to prove the God IS Light.
Well I’ve already asserted God IS Light by definition.
Next you will ask to prove my definition of God is correct.
I will assert that by scientific method, my hypothesis is that God IS Light.
Now you will say God is not light and I will say, Yes He is. Light permeates the Universe and nothing exists absent of the existence of Light
You will say then God can’t be just Light, He has to be Word, or God has to be Love, etc.
You will say I must expand the definition of God beyond merely God IS Light.
And I will say,
Words cannot exist apart from light.
And a non scientist will say, what if I go into a dark room and shut out all the lights, then speak words.
And I will say, you don’t understand the nature of light as Light is radiation existing beyond merely the visible spectrum. And if you didn’t understand that I will say get out a night vision infrared goggles in the dark room and you will see its not dark.
Then you will say what?
etc etc etc etc
Consciousness does not exist without Light. Light exists. Consciousness exists.
See … its simple … God is Light. God is the cosmic Word. God exists. God’s existence can be proven scientifically!
W
Wesrock
Guest
Science is a method that you are not using. 
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
No proof?? There are myriad of proofs.OK.
The theory of evolution is considered to be real science.
There is no proof, yet people consider it science.
This is philosophy, not science.
Sound exists, no one has denied that.
Again, the proof of light is not in question
No
There are too many logical fallacies here to answer quickly.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Science is a method that you are not using.
A
AmosTown
Guest
Darwinian evolution science uses what method again …?? Hmmm??Science is a method that you are not using.
Modern evolution theory is a ‘scientifically flatliner’.
Why? Because it doesn’t consider the 4 fundamentals in its science. Namely:
Time, Space, Energy, and Matter.
The food chain has to evolve concurrent with the evolution of the species.
Oh I know … plants are more intelligent than animals … they sat around for millions of years thinking about how to evolve their appearance and taste to appeal to the species to come millions of years in the future.
Again … which science are you referring to?
A
AmosTown
Guest
God IS Light.
A
AmosTown
Guest
No. These are not proofs. Proof of evolution must prove as a function of time.
There is no mathematical treatise proving that the food chain (plants) evolved concurrent with the animal kingdom.
You have to show that plants have intelligence and evolve their appearance and taste to suit animals.
Get out your calculator.
A
AmosTown
Guest
I’m afraid I cannot resist the temptation to repost a short piece I wrote on this question:
Why the Bible is not a science textbook
SCENE: Inside a tent in the desert. There is a small table and chair in the middle of the tent. Some baggage is stacked at the back.
Characters: GOD invisible and omnipresent. MOSES offstage.
MOSES enters the tent.
MOSES: “What a day! If I ever see another grain of sand I swear that I am goi…”
GOD: “Moses!”
MOSES: (surprised) “Yes Lord!”
GOD: “Get pen, ink and papyrus.”
MOSES goes to the baggage and fetches a pen, ink and papyrus. He takes them to the table and sits down.
GOD: “Begin writing.”
MOSES: “Yes Lord.”
GOD: “In the beginning I created a quantum fluctuation at the hyper-sub-quark level …”
MOSES: (interrupting) “Sorry Lord. Was that spelled K-W-A-H-K?”
GOD: “Hmmm. I see a problem. Humans will not discover hyper-sub-quarks for another 8,726 years three months and sixteen days. Perhaps something less cosmological might work better. Moses, begin a new sheet of papyrus.”
MOSES picks up a new piece of papyrus and prepares to write.
GOD: “In the beginning I created deoxyribonucleic acid …”
MOSES: (interrupting) “Sorry Lord, but could you spell that please?”
GOD: “Oy vey! Why did I make these people so dumb?”
GOD touches a finger to Moses’ forehead.
MOSES: “Ah, now I understand. Thank you for giving me all that knowledge Lord. Unfortunately I see a problem. If I write ‘deoxyribonucleic acid’ then none of the other Israelites will know what the he… heck I have written about unless you touch all their foreheads as well.”
GOD: “Hmmm. A good point Moses. Let me think about it for a few thousand years.”
MOSES: “But what do I do while I am waiting?”
GOD: “Never mind, I have finished thinking.”
MOSES: “That was never thousands of years.”
GOD: “Do you doubt Me! Time is Mine to command. It is subject to Me, not Me to it.”
MOSES: (humbly) “Sorry Lord.”
GOD: "Start a new piece of papyrus.
MOSES picks up a new piece of papyrus and prepares to write.
GOD: “In the beginning I created the heavens and the earth …”
CUT: Fade to black.
rossum
yes. and your previous question about 2 amputees left out Jesus’ teaching to ask correctly
they should have asked to first become reptilians as they would need lizard genes to grow new limbs
P
PRmerger
Guest
LOL!
You do see the very, very bad logic you’re using, Amos, yes?
That will inevitably lead to a wag saying: “Oh really? You are a person, therefore God is a person? Ok. You are a 5’ 6” Chinese American man therefore God is a 5’ 6" Chinese American man?"
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
The fallacy is an inverse-epistemic fallacy, converse error, equivocation
P
PRmerger
Guest
Still waiting for the “Scientific proof” that God is a Trinity.. God’s existence can be proven scientifically!
W
Wesrock
Guest
First, let’s be clear that science is a method. It’s not a group of people, or a field of study. Your opinion on evolutionary science or global warming has no impact of the validity of the method itself, only whether it was carried out appropriately. It’s the same with being a Christian. Christianity is a series of beliefs which imply a certain morality, and if someone or a particular denomination are bad Christians it doesn’t in itself invalidate the basic beliefs of Christianity.
Science as a method involves falsifiable statements, empirical observation, well designed tests that can be repeated, statistical evaluation of the significance of results, and reaching a consensus. Time, space, energy, and matter are not science. Science is just a method used to study time, space, energy, and matter. Older definitions of science are also broad enough to include demonstration through reason. Whether the scientific method is carried out appropriately is a separate question and not at issue here.
I don’t need to refer to “which science.” I’m talking about the scientific method. What you’re doing doesn’t fit into this at all.
A
AmosTown
Guest
God IS Light. Do you deny this?
A
AmosTown
Guest
On purpose …
A
AmosTown
Guest
I do not completely agree.
You are throwing out theoretical science. You’re saying theoretical physics doesn’t apply. That’s not the case at all. Theories presented scientifically are in fact science.
W
Wesrock
Guest
I’m not throwing physics out. Science (modern day) is the empirical study of things quantifiable, with specific standards as to how this study is carried out and conclusions are reached. Physics is the broadest category field of study for science there is. Everything else is, to a degree, a specialized subset of physics.
Science is only a tool: a method of study. When we speak of “the sciences,” we mean fields where this method is being applied. Now, as for their conclusions and popular theories, you may question how good their methods were, whether such and such findings are significant and mean what they say, etc . . . But science itself is just the tool being used.
This is why people have objected to you speaking of scientific proof or evidence of the Trinity. You’re not using the tool, but you’re claiming you have a scientific conclusion.
Science is only a tool: a method of study. When we speak of “the sciences,” we mean fields where this method is being applied. Now, as for their conclusions and popular theories, you may question how good their methods were, whether such and such findings are significant and mean what they say, etc . . . But science itself is just the tool being used.
This is why people have objected to you speaking of scientific proof or evidence of the Trinity. You’re not using the tool, but you’re claiming you have a scientific conclusion.
R
rossum
Guest
Matthew 18:19 - “Again I say to you, that if two of you shall consent upon earth, concerning any thing whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is in heaven.”
See my post #15 at the bottom of page one.
rossum
W
Wesrock
Guest
To add, I’m not saying only “laws of nature” are science. Scientific theories are models of nature that are backed by data gathered through the scientific method. Whether it’s a good model and the data valid is a separate point.
W
Wesrock
Guest
- Status