OK here is why no man can prove God including saved man
Eccl 3:11 ¶ He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the
world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.
No man will find God in any
scientific endeavor or any spiritual walk they may take. There is only one way
Job 28:15-28 It cannot be gotten for gold, neither shall silver
be weighed for the price thereof. It cannot be valued with the gold of Ophir, with the precious onyx, or the sapphire. The gold and the crystal
cannot equal it: and the exchange of it shall not be for jewels of fine gold. No mention shall be made of coral, or of pearls: for the price of
wisdom is above rubies. The topaz of Ethiopia shall not equal it, neither shall it be valued with pure gold. Whence then cometh wisdom? and where is
the place of understanding? Seeing it is hid from the eyes of all living, and kept close from the fowls of the air. Destruction and death say, We
have heard the fame thereof with our ears. God understandeth the way thereof, and he knoweth the place thereof. For he looketh to the ends of the
earth, and seeth under the whole heaven; To make the weight for the winds; and he weigheth the waters by measure. When he made a decree for the rain,
and a way for the lightning of the thunder: Then did he see it, and declare it; he prepared it, yea, and searched it out. And unto man he said,
Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.
You see you can only get the understanding of God by
departing from evil, wickedness and iniquity. But no man can depart from evil that on his own, He must first humble himself and accept through faith
the work of Jesus Christ on the cross for himself personally. The Knowledge of God can come by no other way except through Christ.
All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and [he]
to whomsoever the Son will reveal [him].
It would seem so, although many who refer to themselves as atheists would probably deny having any sort of belief because they have been conditioned
with arguments conflating the word "belief" or "believe" with "blind belief" or "blindly believing" (with no evidence). As they do this they have been
trained to rephrase things to saying things such as "I accept (as the most likely or plausible scenario...)" or "I think (it's most likely, or likely
that...) and of course you someimes get the cherry-picking of definitions for atheism that use the phrase "lack of belief". Here's one dictionary they
won't cherry-pick at such times (unless to diss it):
Let's see how long those guys last being honest about a proper definition for atheism that doesn't describe something that also or already counts for
agnosticism (yet still would not be an appropiate definition for agnosticism either, not emphasizing the more important aspects of agnosticism).
Seeing that I saw a lot of dictionaries that have already changed the definition for atheism to the bogus one using the phrase "lack of belief" (I
could go into the motive regarding the topic of the burden of proof, but I don't want to take too long).
Welcome to the philosophy and promotion of vagueness and ignorance (the opposite of ATS' motto: deny ignorance):
It matches well with the contradictory philosophy (and misuse of the word "science", misleading and deceptive as well) expressed in an e-mail by
Alexander Vilenkin to Lawrence Krauss:
Of course there is no such thing as absolute certainty in science, ...
1+1=2. You can take that to the bank Mr. Vilenkin, as I'm sure you do whenever they make a mistake not in your favor regarding the money on your bank
account for selling unverified philosophies as science (and so-called "hypotheses"). For which that popular contradictory philosophy is rather
convenient. Science, from the Latin "scientia", meaning knowledge, which essentially means a familiarity with facts/certainties/truths/realities (all
synonyms) or things that are absolute/certain/factual/true/conclusive/correct, without error. Unlike evolutionary philosophies, most of what's being
sold in the field of theoretical physics, any promotion of philosophical naturalism under the marketing label "science", ridiculous mathematical
formulas for the possibility of alien lifeforms that conveniently leave out any discussion how that life actually originated without someone to
engineer the required machinery and technology that we are observing in actual lifeforms (arguing from what we know, not what we can fantasize about
concerning mythological lifeforms not made up of machinery and technology) let alone take all the required factors for the possibility of life into
account (throwing off the entire formula, talking about the Drake Equation and similar attempts to be silly and tickle people's ears with Hollywood
style entertainment about alien lifeforms while talking past the actual evidence for lifeforms not from this earth, the machinery and technology that
makes up life on this earth, just because it might cause some people to think about one specifically highly technologically advanced Engineer or
Creator), contradictory/paradoxal interpretations of Quantum Mechanics or making "statements about the past" "in quantum mechanical language"* (in the
field of Quantum Cosmology) and so on. *: partially quoting Freeman Dyson regarding what you "cannot" do regarding quantum mechanics (at least if you
want to remain accurate that is, and not save yourself and your published articles from embarassment where you're doing that or attempting to do that,
the summary of the career of some quantum cosmologists and theoretical physicists who still either don't understand the true meaning of Schrödinger's
cat story and paradox/contradiction, or refuse to accept or acknowledge what it tells us about the things they present in their published articles
about Quantum Cosmology, quantum mechanical language applied to the cosmology of the past and numerous unverified untestable models, cyclical,
oscillating, cosmic bootstrap principle and meaningless formulas). Went a bit off on a tangent there.
Btw, are you sure that there is no such thing as absolute certainty in science? Cause if you can't tell me if that statement is
certain/absolute/true/correct, without error or not, what's the point of saying it? Aren't you saying it because that is what you believe is the case
(of the matter)? The truth/certainty of the matter? Your statement sounds a bit self-defeating even if ignoring the contradictory and misleading use
of language. Capitalizing on the ambiguity of language (which hopefully can be overcome with the use of some synonyms for the observant reader).
Just writing what questions come up in my mind when reading such a statement by Vilenkin (and others basically claiming the same thing, of which there
are many, Lawrence Krauss is emphasizing it as well in that video because he agrees with it, it's conducive for his career and reputation or status as
well; if you can't publish articles or books about actual science cause they don't sell as well and you've never made any actual significant discovery
akin to the Law of Gravity and your main business centers around fancy elaborate storytelling, just change the meaning of what science is or how
people perceive what it is or go along with those already having done so).
edit on 12-1-2019 by whereislogic because: (no reason
a reply to: whereislogic
Oh sorry, with "Lawrence Krauss is emphasizing it as well in that video" I was actually referring to the video I linked in another thread in
this comment. "it" is referring to my quotation of Valenkin's e-mail to
Krauss depicted at 1:46. And some of my comment here is continuing on from my thoughts in
this comment and
this comment. For some background.
The title of that video is "Evidence Lawrence Krauss Misrepresents Alexander Vilenkin". Krauss makes another appeal to this contradictory philosophy
when he later talks about something supposedly not being "wrong" (remember, eveything is supposedly vague, we supposedly don't or even can't know
anything for certain, so we can't really tell what's right/true/correct or wrong/false/incorrect; which logical pathway leads to invalidating every
true or false type of question in any test ever devised, such as true or false IQ-tests, or IQ-tests where you have to give 1 correct answer and the
rest are wrong, not that IQ-tests would be the only example, it pretty much invalidates the whole field of education where factual/absolute
Oh, and while I'm at it, I might as well correct Vilenkin's statement at the end there of that e-mail where he says:
...at the beginning of the universe that's when quantum mechanics matters.
Which should be: ...at the beginning of the universe that's when quantum mechanical language doesn't apply.
As I alluded to in my previous comment. Ah, might as well link Freeman Dyson's presentation about the subject as well (keypoints at 2:02 - 3:34 and
20:50 - 23:56, see quotation regarding "quantum mechanical language" at 22:16 - 22:26 + 22:45 - 23:06):
edit on 12-1-2019 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.