• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Basic & Gross/Current?

You need to provide a mapping from God to the other forces in physics.
 
Craig4 said:
A claim for which you offer no evidence.
Click to expand...

This is a Religion and Philosophy forum. You may not need strict scientific evidances, but should still consider loggically, spritually, naturally, socially by live evidances(who believed & experianced God).

I am just saying that, since God is said to be omnipresent it shoud vest in everything & being. Let us first start with elementary EM force and its mediator,for example.

There is a center liee or mid line in a wave. I assume it as GOD or prime force present in wave. Now compare indicated properties of GOD with its qualities. Since God is said to be indescribalale to commons, this line is also considered as imagionary but not.
 
Kumar said:
This is a Religion and Philosophy forum. You may not need strict scientific evidances, but should still consider loggically, spritually, naturally, socially by live evidances(who believed & experianced God).

I am just saying that, since God is said to be omnipresent it shoud vest in everything & being. Let us first start with elementary EM force and its mediator,for example.

There is a center liee or mid line in a wave. I assume it as GOD or prime force present in wave. Now compare indicated properties of GOD with its qualities. Since God is said to be indescribalale to commons, this line is also considered as imagionary but not.
Click to expand...

But your assessment has no meaning if you can't establish that there is a god. "God is said to..." does nothing to establish the existence of a god.
 
Craig4 said:
But your assessment has no meaning if you can't establish that there is a god. "God is said to..." does nothing to establish the existence of a god.
Click to expand...

Also, if you redefine God as something which already exists, such as all forces in nature or a mathematical construct, then the reaction is just "so what?" It tells us nothing new, since we already know those things exist under other names and there's no indication they're commanding us to do anything differently than we're already doing or have any relationship with us other than what we're already aware of.
 
Kumar said:
This is a Religion and Philosophy forum. You may not need strict scientific evidances, but should still consider loggically, spritually, naturally, socially by live evidances(who believed & experianced God).

I am just saying that, since God is said to be omnipresent it shoud vest in everything & being. Let us first start with elementary EM force and its mediator,for example.

There is a center liee or mid line in a wave. I assume it as GOD or prime force present in wave. Now compare indicated properties of GOD with its qualities. Since God is said to be indescribalale to commons, this line is also considered as imagionary but not.
Click to expand...

Is there someone there who can help you translate this stuff into English?
 
Pup said:
Also, if you redefine God as something which already exists, such as all forces in nature or a mathematical construct, then the reaction is just "so what?" It tells us nothing new, since we already know those things exist under other names and there's no indication they're commanding us to do anything differently than we're already doing or have any relationship with us other than what we're already aware of.
Click to expand...

You can say so but you have not yet linked these two things i.e. spritual with science. If I say colour is sprit of substance, it can cover both. If I say soul is emitted spectrum of being, it will also cover both. If we are able to link any spritully interpreted entity with any known scientific understanding, it will cover both. Isn't it?

It can be possible that our learned ancesstor shown those concepts which can't be seen by us or which are not practical for commons, in different way to make those more effective. If I say fundamental forces their mediators are shown as spritual entities then true meaning will be the same but language can be different. I just feel every recent new understandings can just be language change & shown form change.

Still, we can also say anyone having indicated properties of God can be alike God at gross level.
 
Craig4 said:
But your assessment has no meaning if you can't establish that there is a god. "God is said to..." does nothing to establish the existence of a god.
Click to expand...

We can also do that by linking any mass existing aspect in sprituals with any existing aspect/concept in science. Not So? Just see & compare the properties not the language & shown form for practical sake? Flat earth is more practical for commons, so shown accordingly to commons by our learned, intelligent & practical ancesstors because for most practical purposes flat is better otherwise we can feel instablity, as if standing on a ball.
 
tsig said:
And incomprehensible.
Click to expand...

Since GOD is considered as omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent--all can have these properties. When my sensing of any aspect matches with GOD in me, I consider that as abosolute & final. I do account both logics & science otherwise anyone may not be absolute.
 
dafydd said:
Is there someone there who can help you translate this stuff into English?
Click to expand...

Language should not be barrier to understandings. A child enven though don't have language but still can express everything to parents ot to some other dedicated person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom