by BlogSpotThinker
September 29, 2011
(Revised October 10, 2011)
A Comprehensive Set of Explanations
The Bible appears to offer the most comprehensive set of explanations regarding the human experience. This apparently strong, Biblical set of explanations appears to include answers to questions for which science appears not yet to have offered an alternative. Consequently, ascribing more influence to the Bible’s apparent claims than to claims of a pink unicorn, magic space pizza or wizard, as appear to have been suggested, appears to be reasonably considered to be less-than-irrational.
The explanations that the Bible appears to offer appear to include (a) origins, including that of earth and of man, (b) the origin of adversity, (c) the solution for adversity, (d) some portion of the apparent conflicts in the middle east, (e) the historic development of estrangement from God, and (f) the apparently significant role of the nation of Israel. These six points appear to be drawn solely from an small, early portion of the first book of the Bible.
Comprehensive Presentation: Events, Perspectives and Principles
The Bible appears to explain the human experience by presenting relevant events, perspectives and principles. This approach appears to offer a more thorough, well-rounded and relatable presentation of the range of human experience than might an shorter or academic analysis of theory. This approach appears intended to inform regarding what representative parties did, what their thoughts were and the principles that are suggested to impact the human experience.
A Pivotal Moment: Rejecting God's Sovereign Leadership
The Bible appears to suggest that the Biblically-suggested rejection of God’s sovereign leadership is pivotal to the human experience and impacts every aspect of the human experience from human biology and human thought to the environment. The Bible appears to suggest that, as a result, the sole solution to this adverse human condition appears to be the restoration of the God/humanity relationship. This apparent Biblical suggestion appears to be substantiated by history’s apparent report that, despite all of the physical, intellectual and technological development throughout human history, humanity appears reported not to have resolved the adversities associated with the human condition.
Impact of Rejecting God's Sovereign Leadership
Aspects of the human experience apparently suggested by the Bible to have been impacted by this occurrence appear Biblically-suggested to include:(a) the human ability to discern, identify and interact with God, (b) adverse aspects of human nature such as those that might be reasonably described as evil and barbaric.
Introduction of Human and Animal Aggression
The Bible appears to suggest that the fall of man affected human perspective, eventually leading to envy and murder. Development of aggressiveness in animals appears to be reasonably explainable via transference of aggression from humanity to animals. Science appears to suggest that living entities besides humans appear to perceive emotion and, to some extent, to internalize and/or produce the emotions that they perceive. In light of this understanding, introduction of animal aggression via exposure to human aggression appears to be reasonable.
The Importance of the Bible to the World
The Bible appears to suggest that God intended to form a special relationship with Abraham’s lineage, that Abraham was to direct his lineage to keep God’s standards (Genesis 18: 19), and that all the nations of the world would be blessed through Abraham’s lineage (Genesis 12:1-3; Genesis 17:1-8, 19, 21; Genesis 18: 18, 19; Genesis 22:17, 18). An apparently reasonable interpretation of these passages appears to be that God planned for the nation of Israel to exemplify to the world the potential for the relationship between God and humanity. The importance of the Bible to the world appears to be that the Bible appears to be understood to be the guide to that special relationship.
Preference for the King James Version
A certain amount of preference for the King James Version of the Bible appears to be suggested by some. The King James Version appears to be reasonably understood to employ what appears to be generally referred to as the “Old English” dialect of the English language. An apparently reasonable possible explanation for this preference is that “Old English” appears to be reasonably considered to be one of several languages and dialects that appear to be reasonably considered to be the object of greater appreciation among languages and dialects. Recollection appears to suggest that other demographic groups besides that of Christians appear to be somewhat drawn to the English dialect apparently favorably associated with Shakespeare and King Arthur. An apparent, apparently attractive perception of strength and dignity appears to be associated with the dialect.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Accusations Against God: Too Few Restrictions (Adam and Eve)
By BlogSpotThinker
September 24, 2011
God appears to be accused by some of cruelly and negligently allowing adversity that He could have prevented. Other accusations apparently reasonably perceived to suggest that God’s allowing the negative circumstance to occur constitutes God’s intent for the outcome to manifest itself in the way that the Bible appears to report. The accusation appears to suggest that the Bible’s portrayal of God as omniscient and omnipotent suggests that God could have prevented Adam and Eve from making the wrong choice in the Garden. This accusation appears to suggest that the Bible’s portrayal of God’s management of humanity falls below the human standard for parenting.
The Bible, however, appears to suggest that God established an environment with one restriction and made that restriction clear, arming Adam and Eve with the necessary knowledge (Genesis 2:16 and 17, Genesis 3:2 and 3). The Bible appears to suggest that, having done so, God left the choice of whether or not to abide by that restriction to Adam and Eve.
Even in the context of human parenting, when given an exemplary information and child-development experience, a child appears reasonably expected to eventually make decisions on its own. It appears further generally expected that even a well-intentioned human parent will not attempt to control a child’s environment beyond a certain point. Attempts to do so appear generally considered to be excessive by the vast majority of opinion that appears to be considered reasonable, if not also considered to be similarly so by the child. Such attempts to control a child’s environment might even reasonably be considered to impinge upon the freedoms of others that are part of that environment. However, I humbly and respectfully submit that the above is not intended to opine on the apparently widely-variable context of specific parenting choices.
The Bible appears to suggest that Adam and Eve ultimately chose to accept a false depiction of God and, as a result, the corrupt leadership of the falsifier rather than the apparently falsely-maligned leadership of God. As a result, as the Bible appears to suggest, human perspective and discernment was damagingly altered, apparently resulting in less-wise decision-making that resulted in negative outcomes. Similarly, human children, even including those perhaps considered to be impeccably-raised, appear reported to make inappropriate choices. Whether those choices are attributable to parent failings, to the child’s nature, or to some other factor appears to be a matter somewhat inconsistently assessed in retrospect.
An example of the apparently suggested intervention by God that appears to be generally considered to be undesirable appears to be eliminating the potential for murder by eliminating human physical capability to manipulate objects or by eliminating components of the environment that can be used to commit murder. Greater intervention by God to prevent undesirable human choice by eliminating human capacity to choose would appear to offer even greater potential for God to be misrepresented and misperceived as being overly restrictive and, as a result, as infringing upon human freedom, individuality and self-determined potential.
September 24, 2011
God appears to be accused by some of cruelly and negligently allowing adversity that He could have prevented. Other accusations apparently reasonably perceived to suggest that God’s allowing the negative circumstance to occur constitutes God’s intent for the outcome to manifest itself in the way that the Bible appears to report. The accusation appears to suggest that the Bible’s portrayal of God as omniscient and omnipotent suggests that God could have prevented Adam and Eve from making the wrong choice in the Garden. This accusation appears to suggest that the Bible’s portrayal of God’s management of humanity falls below the human standard for parenting.
The Bible, however, appears to suggest that God established an environment with one restriction and made that restriction clear, arming Adam and Eve with the necessary knowledge (Genesis 2:16 and 17, Genesis 3:2 and 3). The Bible appears to suggest that, having done so, God left the choice of whether or not to abide by that restriction to Adam and Eve.
Even in the context of human parenting, when given an exemplary information and child-development experience, a child appears reasonably expected to eventually make decisions on its own. It appears further generally expected that even a well-intentioned human parent will not attempt to control a child’s environment beyond a certain point. Attempts to do so appear generally considered to be excessive by the vast majority of opinion that appears to be considered reasonable, if not also considered to be similarly so by the child. Such attempts to control a child’s environment might even reasonably be considered to impinge upon the freedoms of others that are part of that environment. However, I humbly and respectfully submit that the above is not intended to opine on the apparently widely-variable context of specific parenting choices.
The Bible appears to suggest that Adam and Eve ultimately chose to accept a false depiction of God and, as a result, the corrupt leadership of the falsifier rather than the apparently falsely-maligned leadership of God. As a result, as the Bible appears to suggest, human perspective and discernment was damagingly altered, apparently resulting in less-wise decision-making that resulted in negative outcomes. Similarly, human children, even including those perhaps considered to be impeccably-raised, appear reported to make inappropriate choices. Whether those choices are attributable to parent failings, to the child’s nature, or to some other factor appears to be a matter somewhat inconsistently assessed in retrospect.
An example of the apparently suggested intervention by God that appears to be generally considered to be undesirable appears to be eliminating the potential for murder by eliminating human physical capability to manipulate objects or by eliminating components of the environment that can be used to commit murder. Greater intervention by God to prevent undesirable human choice by eliminating human capacity to choose would appear to offer even greater potential for God to be misrepresented and misperceived as being overly restrictive and, as a result, as infringing upon human freedom, individuality and self-determined potential.
God and Justice
By BlogSpotThinker
September 24, 2011
Compensating injury for injury appears to be prescribed in several Old Testament passages. In Exodus 21, the context appears to pertain to two people fighting who hit a pregnant woman and serious injury results. In Leviticus 24, the context appears to cover killing a neighbor’s animal and injuring a neighbor. Deuteronomy 19 appears to refer to malicious false witness.
The guideline appears to be reasonably considered to not be intended to be applied as a general rule of thumb for addressing social conflict, but, rather the guideline appears reasonably considered to be intended to be applied to specific acts that are intentional and, perhaps, reasonably considered to be egregious.
An apparently reasonable theory appears to be that applying the guideline of compensating injury for injury as a general rule of thumb appears to present a problem of its own. Human fallibility regarding discernment of propriety appears generally and even scientifically widely-accepted. This fallibility appears to suggest the potential for miscarriages of justice. Such miscarriages of justice appear to add to the list of injuries that must be compensated for.
Matthew 5 appears to suggest considering the credo to be a reflection of the problem and to recommend moving beyond the letter of that guideline to the appropriate perspective that cares about one’s neighbor.
September 24, 2011
Compensating injury for injury appears to be prescribed in several Old Testament passages. In Exodus 21, the context appears to pertain to two people fighting who hit a pregnant woman and serious injury results. In Leviticus 24, the context appears to cover killing a neighbor’s animal and injuring a neighbor. Deuteronomy 19 appears to refer to malicious false witness.
The guideline appears to be reasonably considered to not be intended to be applied as a general rule of thumb for addressing social conflict, but, rather the guideline appears reasonably considered to be intended to be applied to specific acts that are intentional and, perhaps, reasonably considered to be egregious.
An apparently reasonable theory appears to be that applying the guideline of compensating injury for injury as a general rule of thumb appears to present a problem of its own. Human fallibility regarding discernment of propriety appears generally and even scientifically widely-accepted. This fallibility appears to suggest the potential for miscarriages of justice. Such miscarriages of justice appear to add to the list of injuries that must be compensated for.
Matthew 5 appears to suggest considering the credo to be a reflection of the problem and to recommend moving beyond the letter of that guideline to the appropriate perspective that cares about one’s neighbor.
Friday, September 23, 2011
Accusations Against God: Arbitrariness (Jacob and Esau)
By BlogSpotThinker
September 23, 2011
Among the accusations apparently levied against God, one accusation appears to be that the Bible portrays God as unconcernedly arbitrary in His judgment of humanity. One apparently suggested example of this apparently suggested arbitrariness appears suggested to pertain to the Old Testament account of Jacob and Esau and, more specifically perhaps, the New Testament, Romans 9, apparent Paulian reference to that Old Testament account. The Romans 9 passage appears suggested to portray God as arbitrarily preferring Jacob and disapproving of Esau.
I humbly and respectfully suggest that I appear to understand the logic behind the apparent concern regarding the apparent Biblical portrayal of God in Romans 9. The passage’s apparent linguistic portrayal of God appears very inconsistent with the apparent description of God elsewhere in the Bible as unfathomably just and loving.
Upon closer review, however, the writer of Romans 9 – apparently suggested to be Paul – appears to combine two “quotes” from God from two different sections of the Bible. Romans 9:12 appears suggested to quote “The older will serve the younger” from Genesis 25:23 and Romans 9:13 appears suggested to quote “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” from Malachi 1:2, 3 (both from the New International Version).
The apparent “original” context and resulting original connotation of the statements apparently suggested to have been quoted in Romans 9 appears to vary somewhat from the context and connotation apparently applied by Romans 9 to those original statements. Genesis 25:22 and 23 appear to represent a conversation between God and Rebekah, Isaac’s wife and the mother of twins Jacob and Esau. The passage appears to suggest that Rebekah sensed a great deal of movement of the two prenatal infants: “The babies jostled each other within her” (New International Version) and inquired of God regarding the reason. Genesis 25:23 appears to suggest that God replied to Rebekah that the twins would father and head two separate nations and that the “older” would “serve the younger”, apparently reversing tradition that appears to typically assign a greater leadership role to the older of siblings. Although God appears to foretell, in this passage, the destinies of the two children, there appears to be no indication at all in the passage that God preferred one child over the other. This appears suggested to be solely an explanation for the hyperactivity that Rebekah appears suggested to have sensed and a foretelling of the destiny of the two children.
In Malachi, a retrospective monologue by the prophet Malachi regarding Israel (apparently Jacob’s descendents) appears to have just started. In the passage, Malachi appears to begin by voicing God’s declaration of love for Israel. Malachi then appears to describe Israel’s apparent request to God to substantiate this declared love of Israel. Malachi then appears suggested to describe God’s substantiation of His love for Israel via a reminder of the sibling nature of the two nations’ forefathers and that, yet, God has loved Jacob, but has hated Esau. Being that this monologue appears to represent a retrospective, it appears reasonable to suggest that the difference in God’s treatment of the two brothers and their lineage might reasonably be considered to be related to their apparently earlier reported choices regarding acceptance of God’s leadership.
The apparent Romans 9 analysis apparently associated with Paul appears reasonably considered to address the apparent assertion of Jews that their descendance from Abraham automatically guaranteed their acceptance by God. Paul appears suggested to describe that acceptance by God is, at all times, the purview of God, rather than even descendance from Abraham. Further, Paul appears suggested to illustrate the apparently suggested disconnect between God’s approval and descendance from Abraham by suggesting that both Jacob and Esau were descendants of Abraham and that, yet, God approved of Jacob while highly disapproving of Esau. Paul appears suggested to mention that this diverse destiny was foreknown by God before the twins had been born and that God’s authority regarding foreknowledge and approval regarding humanity was demonstrated by God’s declaration to Rebekah that the younger would serve the older. The apparently suggested Paulian reference to God’s differing approval response toward Jacob and Esau and their lineage appears reasonably considered to be phrased as an afterthought, apparently perhaps, supporting the apparent Paulian assertion that descendance from Abraham did not make approval by God automatic: “just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” (Romans 9:13, New International Version).
September 23, 2011
Among the accusations apparently levied against God, one accusation appears to be that the Bible portrays God as unconcernedly arbitrary in His judgment of humanity. One apparently suggested example of this apparently suggested arbitrariness appears suggested to pertain to the Old Testament account of Jacob and Esau and, more specifically perhaps, the New Testament, Romans 9, apparent Paulian reference to that Old Testament account. The Romans 9 passage appears suggested to portray God as arbitrarily preferring Jacob and disapproving of Esau.
I humbly and respectfully suggest that I appear to understand the logic behind the apparent concern regarding the apparent Biblical portrayal of God in Romans 9. The passage’s apparent linguistic portrayal of God appears very inconsistent with the apparent description of God elsewhere in the Bible as unfathomably just and loving.
Upon closer review, however, the writer of Romans 9 – apparently suggested to be Paul – appears to combine two “quotes” from God from two different sections of the Bible. Romans 9:12 appears suggested to quote “The older will serve the younger” from Genesis 25:23 and Romans 9:13 appears suggested to quote “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” from Malachi 1:2, 3 (both from the New International Version).
The apparent “original” context and resulting original connotation of the statements apparently suggested to have been quoted in Romans 9 appears to vary somewhat from the context and connotation apparently applied by Romans 9 to those original statements. Genesis 25:22 and 23 appear to represent a conversation between God and Rebekah, Isaac’s wife and the mother of twins Jacob and Esau. The passage appears to suggest that Rebekah sensed a great deal of movement of the two prenatal infants: “The babies jostled each other within her” (New International Version) and inquired of God regarding the reason. Genesis 25:23 appears to suggest that God replied to Rebekah that the twins would father and head two separate nations and that the “older” would “serve the younger”, apparently reversing tradition that appears to typically assign a greater leadership role to the older of siblings. Although God appears to foretell, in this passage, the destinies of the two children, there appears to be no indication at all in the passage that God preferred one child over the other. This appears suggested to be solely an explanation for the hyperactivity that Rebekah appears suggested to have sensed and a foretelling of the destiny of the two children.
In Malachi, a retrospective monologue by the prophet Malachi regarding Israel (apparently Jacob’s descendents) appears to have just started. In the passage, Malachi appears to begin by voicing God’s declaration of love for Israel. Malachi then appears to describe Israel’s apparent request to God to substantiate this declared love of Israel. Malachi then appears suggested to describe God’s substantiation of His love for Israel via a reminder of the sibling nature of the two nations’ forefathers and that, yet, God has loved Jacob, but has hated Esau. Being that this monologue appears to represent a retrospective, it appears reasonable to suggest that the difference in God’s treatment of the two brothers and their lineage might reasonably be considered to be related to their apparently earlier reported choices regarding acceptance of God’s leadership.
The apparent Romans 9 analysis apparently associated with Paul appears reasonably considered to address the apparent assertion of Jews that their descendance from Abraham automatically guaranteed their acceptance by God. Paul appears suggested to describe that acceptance by God is, at all times, the purview of God, rather than even descendance from Abraham. Further, Paul appears suggested to illustrate the apparently suggested disconnect between God’s approval and descendance from Abraham by suggesting that both Jacob and Esau were descendants of Abraham and that, yet, God approved of Jacob while highly disapproving of Esau. Paul appears suggested to mention that this diverse destiny was foreknown by God before the twins had been born and that God’s authority regarding foreknowledge and approval regarding humanity was demonstrated by God’s declaration to Rebekah that the younger would serve the older. The apparently suggested Paulian reference to God’s differing approval response toward Jacob and Esau and their lineage appears reasonably considered to be phrased as an afterthought, apparently perhaps, supporting the apparent Paulian assertion that descendance from Abraham did not make approval by God automatic: “just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” (Romans 9:13, New International Version).
Thursday, September 22, 2011
The Misdirection of Independence
By BlogSpotThinker
September 22, 2011
A suggestion that I appear to have encountered appears to propose that humanity attempt to figure out how to prosper without relying upon God. This suggestion doesn’t appear rational in light of the apparently Biblical suggestion that God is sovereign, that we are designed for His leadership and that attempts to revise that design, regardless of how partially successful they might appear – destroyed environment exchanged for technological advances, for example – appear Biblically suggested to ultimately really represent a step backward. However, for those who apparently prefer independence from God to optimal existence under His leadership, perhaps, the prospects of a lower-quality existence appear preferable to forfeiture of self-direction that appears to have been promised once, yet that appears Biblically-suggested to be false.
Perhaps this is the beginning of what appears to have been referred to as “Hell”: an approximation of what can be constructed by those who don’t want what can be constructed because it’s not self-direction. Here again, the Bible’s apparent comprehensive explanations of concepts apparently related to human experience that appear not offered by science or other sources appears to suggest the Bible’s credibility. There appears to be no other rationale for accepting the level of destruction that appears to accompany the advances we appear to have achieved. The apparent perspective appears to be that, once the “learning curve” threshold is crossed, success will be available. This appears to be a point of faith somewhat similar to that of faith in God.
Humanity appears to include a fierce independent streak. Supposedly, this might be considered an asset. It appears useful for propelling humanity forward as even the Bible appears to suggest that God invited humanity to be (Genesis 1: 28-30). Perhaps this independent streak might even be a possible asset when dealing with other entities that would attempt to usurp God’s leadership. The Bible appears to suggest, however, that it is not an asset when convinced to be directed toward God. It appears suggested to be as fierce a liability as it is independent.
The only solution appears Biblically suggested to be recognition of the signs that neither the advances nor the independence are worth the destruction, and that the ultimate destiny of the quest is similarly much more self-destruction than it might be self-direction. Those who recognize the signs appear Biblically urged to accept the covering of God’s leadership. The Bible further appears to suggest that the alternative is not nearly as desirable.
September 22, 2011
A suggestion that I appear to have encountered appears to propose that humanity attempt to figure out how to prosper without relying upon God. This suggestion doesn’t appear rational in light of the apparently Biblical suggestion that God is sovereign, that we are designed for His leadership and that attempts to revise that design, regardless of how partially successful they might appear – destroyed environment exchanged for technological advances, for example – appear Biblically suggested to ultimately really represent a step backward. However, for those who apparently prefer independence from God to optimal existence under His leadership, perhaps, the prospects of a lower-quality existence appear preferable to forfeiture of self-direction that appears to have been promised once, yet that appears Biblically-suggested to be false.
Perhaps this is the beginning of what appears to have been referred to as “Hell”: an approximation of what can be constructed by those who don’t want what can be constructed because it’s not self-direction. Here again, the Bible’s apparent comprehensive explanations of concepts apparently related to human experience that appear not offered by science or other sources appears to suggest the Bible’s credibility. There appears to be no other rationale for accepting the level of destruction that appears to accompany the advances we appear to have achieved. The apparent perspective appears to be that, once the “learning curve” threshold is crossed, success will be available. This appears to be a point of faith somewhat similar to that of faith in God.
Humanity appears to include a fierce independent streak. Supposedly, this might be considered an asset. It appears useful for propelling humanity forward as even the Bible appears to suggest that God invited humanity to be (Genesis 1: 28-30). Perhaps this independent streak might even be a possible asset when dealing with other entities that would attempt to usurp God’s leadership. The Bible appears to suggest, however, that it is not an asset when convinced to be directed toward God. It appears suggested to be as fierce a liability as it is independent.
The only solution appears Biblically suggested to be recognition of the signs that neither the advances nor the independence are worth the destruction, and that the ultimate destiny of the quest is similarly much more self-destruction than it might be self-direction. Those who recognize the signs appear Biblically urged to accept the covering of God’s leadership. The Bible further appears to suggest that the alternative is not nearly as desirable.
God: Natural or Supernatural
By BlogSpotThinker
September 22, 2011
“Objective” appears to connote a realm beyond the influence of human perception and thought processing.
“Realness” appears to refer to actual existence and appears bifurcated for the sake of application regarding reality into (a) the “imagination-hosted”: that which exists due to and solely within human perception and (b) the “non-imagination-hosted”: that which exists not as a result of human perception.
The latter non-imagination-hosted group appears generally considered to contain a subset of its members which is represented within the former imagination-hosted group. Additionally, the former imagination-hosted group appears to contain a subset of members which is not represented in the latter non-imagination-hosted group.
“Know” appears reasonably described as referring commonly to two concepts: (a) recognition – “knowing a phenomenon exists”, and (b) understanding – “knowing a concept better than another”.
Perhaps a problem that science has is that it attempts, apparently reportedly for possibly admirable quality-control reasons, to process current perception through the analytic filter of prior perception. Apparently unfortunately, this filtering appears attempted regardless of the validity of the prior perception. Consequently, any experience perceived or reflected upon appears subject to categorizing into either imagination or non-imagination. Based upon the apparently scientific assertion that perception is fallible, “knowing God’s realness” can then never occur. One can never irrefutably determine whether a perception is (a) a real-time representation of an existence independent of that perception or (b) that which appears to be referred to by science as fabrication. Experiencing interaction with God might occur, assuming that the portion of that interaction that might be described by science as “outside of imagination” truly occurred. Science appears to suggest that neither the experiencer nor an observer can “know”.
I humbly and respectfully submit that the term “supernatural” appears to represent less of an intimidation to science than some appear to portray it to represent. The term appears reasonably defined to refer to that which exists beyond what science has yet recognized as truly existing. The term “natural” appears solely to mean “that which is a part of nature”. If nature is “that which truly exists”, and science apparently acknowledges incomplete understanding of all that truly exists, it appears to be a bit too early in science development to suggest the labeling of certain suggested phenomena as “supernatural” as an indicator that it does not exist. Science appears reasonably considered to have logic and reason to assert that it perceives no logical, reasonable basis for considering such a phenomenon to exist but not that said phenomenon does not exist.
Consequently, the term “supernatural” appears to either (a) mean that a suggested phenomenon suggested to exist but that science appears unable to verify either its existence or non-existence or to (b) have no true purpose.
September 22, 2011
“Objective” appears to connote a realm beyond the influence of human perception and thought processing.
“Realness” appears to refer to actual existence and appears bifurcated for the sake of application regarding reality into (a) the “imagination-hosted”: that which exists due to and solely within human perception and (b) the “non-imagination-hosted”: that which exists not as a result of human perception.
The latter non-imagination-hosted group appears generally considered to contain a subset of its members which is represented within the former imagination-hosted group. Additionally, the former imagination-hosted group appears to contain a subset of members which is not represented in the latter non-imagination-hosted group.
“Know” appears reasonably described as referring commonly to two concepts: (a) recognition – “knowing a phenomenon exists”, and (b) understanding – “knowing a concept better than another”.
Perhaps a problem that science has is that it attempts, apparently reportedly for possibly admirable quality-control reasons, to process current perception through the analytic filter of prior perception. Apparently unfortunately, this filtering appears attempted regardless of the validity of the prior perception. Consequently, any experience perceived or reflected upon appears subject to categorizing into either imagination or non-imagination. Based upon the apparently scientific assertion that perception is fallible, “knowing God’s realness” can then never occur. One can never irrefutably determine whether a perception is (a) a real-time representation of an existence independent of that perception or (b) that which appears to be referred to by science as fabrication. Experiencing interaction with God might occur, assuming that the portion of that interaction that might be described by science as “outside of imagination” truly occurred. Science appears to suggest that neither the experiencer nor an observer can “know”.
I humbly and respectfully submit that the term “supernatural” appears to represent less of an intimidation to science than some appear to portray it to represent. The term appears reasonably defined to refer to that which exists beyond what science has yet recognized as truly existing. The term “natural” appears solely to mean “that which is a part of nature”. If nature is “that which truly exists”, and science apparently acknowledges incomplete understanding of all that truly exists, it appears to be a bit too early in science development to suggest the labeling of certain suggested phenomena as “supernatural” as an indicator that it does not exist. Science appears reasonably considered to have logic and reason to assert that it perceives no logical, reasonable basis for considering such a phenomenon to exist but not that said phenomenon does not exist.
Consequently, the term “supernatural” appears to either (a) mean that a suggested phenomenon suggested to exist but that science appears unable to verify either its existence or non-existence or to (b) have no true purpose.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
God and Government
By BlogSpotThinker
September 21, 2011
God and government appears reasonably considered to be a critical social issue. The Bible appears to suggest that God is the supreme entity of all reality, the creator of humanity, and therefore, humanity’s and reality’s unchallengeable leader. Government, on the other hand, appears considered by some to claim the role of humanity’s somewhat challengeable leader. Does a line exist bordering God’s role and that of government? If so, where should the line be drawn?
Many of the founders of American government appear suggested to have held both God and the Bible in high regard while recognizing the potential for misdirection of humanity’s respect for both via unfounded claims of endorsement by both. The founders appear reported to have, therefore, weaved certain Biblical principles apparently considered fundamental into societal guideline documents along with prohibitions on government influence of most, if not all, behavior related to religious belief. These prohibitions appear reasonably interpreted to intend to respect the apparently Biblically-suggested individualized relationship between God and humanity.
While these apparently reported goals might be reasonably considered laudable, do they represent God’s design for humanity?
I primarily, humbly and respectfully submit that the following perspective is not intended to represent authoritative knowledge and that, ultimately, questions regarding God are referred, hereby, to God. The concepts expressed herein are presented as personal perspective, subject to, among other fallibilities, error.
As suggested earlier, the Bible appears to suggest that God created humanity and its reality, including His role as humanity’s leader. The Bible appears to further suggest that God made available to humanity the choice of trusting God’s leadership or that of a challenger who promised humanity self-direction beyond God’s leadership and that humanity wrongly chose the challenger. The Bible appears to also suggest that, since then, humanity has continued its quest for prosperity through self-determination. The Bible and history appear to suggest that the outcome has been undesirable, resulting in a complex, highly destructive version of the three apparently Biblically-suggested, simple goals of God’s original design: to enjoy the world of opportunity God had developed, and while doing so, to love God with all one’s heart and to love others as much as oneself.
An apparent limitation of developing life without God appears suggested by the Bible to be apparent damage done to the relationship between God and humanity and, because human discernment appears Biblically-suggested to be an aspect of that relationship, the resulting damage to human discernment. Humanity’s decision-making ability appears to have been diminished by that first decision to declare its independence from God. A step in humanity’s apparent attempts to address that apparent diminished discernment without returning to God appears to be humanity developing the practice of selecting the “best minds among us” to decide our issues as apparently suggested in Deuteronomy 1:9-18 and other Biblical passages. This appears suggested to represent humanity’s first steps toward government.
An important aspect of the apparently Biblically-suggested development of human government appears to be God’s apparent perspective regarding it. 1 Samuel 8 appears to portray God’s chosen nation’s request for human government “like all the nations” (verse 5) rather than God’s leadership. God’s response appears suggested to be to grant them their choice, but beforehand, to also foretell the disaster that human government would bring. Verses 19 and 20 appear to suggest that the people were undeterred by this warning. Their experience and the human government experience prior to and since then appears to be reasonably considered relatively consistent.
In summary, the Bible appears to suggest that God’s design for humanity has and still is individual relationship with and leadership by God. The extent to which God appears Biblically-suggested to endorse government appears reasonably considered to be the extent to which God has allowed humanity to pursue its apparently Biblically-suggested, Adam-Eve-and-serpent-initiated goal of self-direction, while not completely abandoning humanity and even perhaps blessing somewhat humanity’s efforts to incorporate God in its life. The Bible appears, however, to consistently clarify God’s apparent Biblically-suggested reference to human government as not being God’s recommended design.
September 21, 2011
God and government appears reasonably considered to be a critical social issue. The Bible appears to suggest that God is the supreme entity of all reality, the creator of humanity, and therefore, humanity’s and reality’s unchallengeable leader. Government, on the other hand, appears considered by some to claim the role of humanity’s somewhat challengeable leader. Does a line exist bordering God’s role and that of government? If so, where should the line be drawn?
Many of the founders of American government appear suggested to have held both God and the Bible in high regard while recognizing the potential for misdirection of humanity’s respect for both via unfounded claims of endorsement by both. The founders appear reported to have, therefore, weaved certain Biblical principles apparently considered fundamental into societal guideline documents along with prohibitions on government influence of most, if not all, behavior related to religious belief. These prohibitions appear reasonably interpreted to intend to respect the apparently Biblically-suggested individualized relationship between God and humanity.
While these apparently reported goals might be reasonably considered laudable, do they represent God’s design for humanity?
I primarily, humbly and respectfully submit that the following perspective is not intended to represent authoritative knowledge and that, ultimately, questions regarding God are referred, hereby, to God. The concepts expressed herein are presented as personal perspective, subject to, among other fallibilities, error.
As suggested earlier, the Bible appears to suggest that God created humanity and its reality, including His role as humanity’s leader. The Bible appears to further suggest that God made available to humanity the choice of trusting God’s leadership or that of a challenger who promised humanity self-direction beyond God’s leadership and that humanity wrongly chose the challenger. The Bible appears to also suggest that, since then, humanity has continued its quest for prosperity through self-determination. The Bible and history appear to suggest that the outcome has been undesirable, resulting in a complex, highly destructive version of the three apparently Biblically-suggested, simple goals of God’s original design: to enjoy the world of opportunity God had developed, and while doing so, to love God with all one’s heart and to love others as much as oneself.
An apparent limitation of developing life without God appears suggested by the Bible to be apparent damage done to the relationship between God and humanity and, because human discernment appears Biblically-suggested to be an aspect of that relationship, the resulting damage to human discernment. Humanity’s decision-making ability appears to have been diminished by that first decision to declare its independence from God. A step in humanity’s apparent attempts to address that apparent diminished discernment without returning to God appears to be humanity developing the practice of selecting the “best minds among us” to decide our issues as apparently suggested in Deuteronomy 1:9-18 and other Biblical passages. This appears suggested to represent humanity’s first steps toward government.
An important aspect of the apparently Biblically-suggested development of human government appears to be God’s apparent perspective regarding it. 1 Samuel 8 appears to portray God’s chosen nation’s request for human government “like all the nations” (verse 5) rather than God’s leadership. God’s response appears suggested to be to grant them their choice, but beforehand, to also foretell the disaster that human government would bring. Verses 19 and 20 appear to suggest that the people were undeterred by this warning. Their experience and the human government experience prior to and since then appears to be reasonably considered relatively consistent.
In summary, the Bible appears to suggest that God’s design for humanity has and still is individual relationship with and leadership by God. The extent to which God appears Biblically-suggested to endorse government appears reasonably considered to be the extent to which God has allowed humanity to pursue its apparently Biblically-suggested, Adam-Eve-and-serpent-initiated goal of self-direction, while not completely abandoning humanity and even perhaps blessing somewhat humanity’s efforts to incorporate God in its life. The Bible appears, however, to consistently clarify God’s apparent Biblically-suggested reference to human government as not being God’s recommended design.
Monday, September 19, 2011
The Standard for Right and Wrong
by BlogSpotThinker
September 19, 2011
The Bible appears to suggest that God is the supreme authority regarding what is right and wrong and that questions about what God wants humanity to understand regarding right and wrong should be referred to God (James 1:5).
The Bible also appears to suggest that after Adam and Eve’s rejection of God, human fallibility and intentional alteration of God’s guidelines might have created new versions (http://blogspotthinker.blogspot.com/2011/09/religious-diversity.html). Consequently, for the truth, God appears referred.
The Bible also appears to suggest that the relationship between God and humanity is fundamentally individual and that God’s perspective on what is right in a particular circumstance might be different than human perspective regarding that instance. Such misapplication might even be based on human understanding of God’s laws (Numbers 12).
September 19, 2011
The Bible appears to suggest that God is the supreme authority regarding what is right and wrong and that questions about what God wants humanity to understand regarding right and wrong should be referred to God (James 1:5).
The Bible also appears to suggest that after Adam and Eve’s rejection of God, human fallibility and intentional alteration of God’s guidelines might have created new versions (http://blogspotthinker.blogspot.com/2011/09/religious-diversity.html). Consequently, for the truth, God appears referred.
The Bible also appears to suggest that the relationship between God and humanity is fundamentally individual and that God’s perspective on what is right in a particular circumstance might be different than human perspective regarding that instance. Such misapplication might even be based on human understanding of God’s laws (Numbers 12).
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Accusations Against God
by BlogSpotThinker
September 10 and 18, 2011
(Revised October 1, 2011)
God appears reported to be accused of varied improprieties. The Bible appears to recommend referring to God questions about God, especially in light of apparent, generally accepted limitations of general human and personal knowledge and communication and the extent to which the Bible appears to suggest God’s existence extends beyond human understanding. That apparently Biblical recommendation, ultimately, is implemented here.
In addition, however, certain logic and reason regarding the suggested accusations against God appears sufficiently clear to allow its delineation. This apparent logic and reason is presented in the following essay.
Too Many Restrictions
God appears accused by some of having too many restrictive guidelines. However, the Bible appears to suggest that God, at creation, instead delivered an invitation to a world of opportunity (Genesis 1:28-30, 2:16), one responsibility (Genesis 2:15) and one restriction (Genesis 2:17).
The Bible further appears to suggest that God further clarified His standard in response to humanity’s increasing challenge to and violation of God’s minimal restrictions (various passages from Exodus 20 to Deuteronomy).
Too Few Restrictions
God appears also accused by some of negligently and cruelly allowing adversity because He purportedly could and should have utilized His apparently Biblically-suggested omnipotence and omniscience to prevent Adam and Eve from making the wrong choice in the Garden.
However, the Bible appears to suggest that God established an environment with only one restriction, that God made that restriction clear and that God left the choice of whether or not to abide by that restriction to Adam and Eve. The Bible appears to suggest that Adam and Eve ultimately chose to accept a false depiction of God and, as a result, the corrupt leadership of the falsifier rather than the apparently falsely-maligned leadership of God. As a result, as the Bible appears to suggest, human perspective and discernment was damagingly altered, apparently resulting in less-wise decision-making that resulted in negative outcomes.
If God had prevented the possibility of undesirable human outcome by eliminating human capacity to choose non-compliance with God’s design, as God’s accusers appear to suggest He should have, the less-than-fully-informed might, and appear reported often to, accuse God of being too restrictive and of hiding from humanity something beneficial to humanity, perhaps, including the apparently oft-suggested ability of humanity to not need God, as the apparent Biblical “Adam, Eve and serpent” story appears to suggest that Adam and Eve were convinced to erroneously think. The section “Too Many Restrictions” above also attempts to address this perspective.
Responsibility for Adversity
God also appears to be accused of responsibility for human adversity. However, the Bible appears to be reasonably considered to suggest that humanly-caused human adversity is the result of humanity’s decision to reject God’s leadership and to initiate processes with destructive social and other dynamics. I, humbly and respectfully, ultimately refer to God questions regarding the cause of natural adversity.
Arbitrariness
This apparent accusation against God appears to be that God’s arbitrary preference for Abel’s sacrifice provoked Cain to kill Abel.
Several passages including Matthew 23:35, Hebrews 11, and 1st John 3 appear to refer to the story and appear to suggest that Cain was in the wrong. A quick search near the Cain and Abel story appears not to reveal specification of a lamb rather than vegetation. However, Genesis 4:6 appears to suggest that, when Cain became angry regarding the apparently rejected vegetation sacrifice and before Cain committed his later deed, God gently appealed to Cain regarding the correlation between acceptance and doing right. Although the basis of wrong appears not clearly specified to readers in the text, it appears reasonable to conclude that the basis might have been made clear.
If so, it appears that Cain might have altered the guideline, perhaps for reasons some might consider somewhat admirable. Based upon the rejection, Cain appears suggested to make an illogical choice: causing harm to Abel although Abel does not appear suggested to have harmed Cain. Cain might have distortedly attributed his rejection to Abel. This perhaps exemplifies the distorted perspective that the Bible appears to suggest resulted from the damaged relationship and connection to God apparently Biblically suggested to result from Adam and Eve’s rejection of God.
If God’s apparently suggested advise to Cain and the New Testament consensus regarding Cain is accepted as contextually suggesting Cain’s error, it appears reasonable to suggest that, if Cain is perceived to have been provoked, the perceiver’s solution would appear to suggest that impropriety not to be rejected. Implementation of this solution appears reasonably expected to result in the conditions which appear to give rise to the apparent accusation of some that God offers too few restrictions, as discussed above.
The Misdeeds of Fallible Human Followers
The Bible appears to include various accounts of human fallible judgment, even among the self-proclaimed followers of God. Some accusations appear to attribute to God the fallibility of those who claim to believe in God. In light of humanity’s apparently Biblically suggested choice to reject God’s leadership and the apparent resulting damage done to human discernment, such accounts of fallible judgment appear attributable to humanity’s choices rather than to God.
Punishment of Humanity
The Bible’s apparent description of God’s punishment of humanity for sufficiently egregious violation of God’s guidelines appears questioned. In light of the apparent Biblically suggested propriety and clarity of God’s guidelines and patience exhibited by God regarding such violations, the Bible’s apparently described punishment of humanity by God appears reasonably considered appropriate. The punishment humanity appears to inflict upon humanity appears reported to, at times, be quite severe and compounded by humanity’s fallible discernment of right, wrong, innocence and guilt.
God’s Assertion of Sovereignty
Accusations against God appear to include a suggestion that the Bible’s apparent description of God declaring His sovereignty and requiring humanity’s acknowledgement thereof appears to depict God as petty. However, the Bible appears to suggest that God’s sovereignty is the fundamental premise of reality. If that is the case, making that clear appears reasonable.
Certain accusations appear to suggest that God hasn't made his guidelines clear, as described above. God’s allowing Abraham’s lineage to exemplify human relationship with God might have been challenged by other nations or God might otherwise have recognized the propriety of making clear His sovereignty.
The Unsure Accusations
Other examples appear unclear. However, unspecified context might be important to understand them. The less positive alternative appears very inconsistent with God’s character as elsewhere and even juxtapositionally described.
Accusation Summary
An apparently reasonable theory appears to be that any reality that God provides and any outcome that results appears to be subjectable to retrospective accusation of fault toward God. To wit:
If God creates an excellent environment and establishes guidelines for human living, God might be accused of restricting human choice and potential.
If God removes human and/or environmental potential for violating those guidelines, God might be accused of being over-protective, of not sufficiently trusting humanity, of not allowing choice, of effectively forcing obedience, of unmeritously protecting humanity from nearly-guaranteed disobedience (Old Testament book of Job), and/or of doubting the “design strength” of God’s creation.
If God does not remove the potential for guideline violation and violation follows, God might be accused of negligently not protecting humanity from and/or preparing humanity for the potential for guideline violation, and/or of even maliciously plotting humanity’s harm. In addition, God might be accused of being overly punitive for banning humanity from the garden of Eden for its first violation on the basis that humanity appears to have had insufficient training and/or experience with violation-conducive circumstance.
If God does not remove the potential for violation and violation does not follow, God might be accused of, in fact, having removed the potential for violation. Humanity’s obedience might be attributed to a lack of potential for disobedience, rather than to humanity’s trust in and obedience toward God. The accusation might be levied at humanity that humanity would not have obeyed if potential for disobedience truly existed (Old Testament book of Job).
This tendency to find fault with God regardless of circumstance appears Biblically initially associated with Lucifer and the serpent. That tendency appears to support the apparently Biblically-suggested requirement of faith based upon existing evidence as a key ingredient of relationship and interaction with God.
September 10 and 18, 2011
(Revised October 1, 2011)
God appears reported to be accused of varied improprieties. The Bible appears to recommend referring to God questions about God, especially in light of apparent, generally accepted limitations of general human and personal knowledge and communication and the extent to which the Bible appears to suggest God’s existence extends beyond human understanding. That apparently Biblical recommendation, ultimately, is implemented here.
In addition, however, certain logic and reason regarding the suggested accusations against God appears sufficiently clear to allow its delineation. This apparent logic and reason is presented in the following essay.
Too Many Restrictions
God appears accused by some of having too many restrictive guidelines. However, the Bible appears to suggest that God, at creation, instead delivered an invitation to a world of opportunity (Genesis 1:28-30, 2:16), one responsibility (Genesis 2:15) and one restriction (Genesis 2:17).
The Bible further appears to suggest that God further clarified His standard in response to humanity’s increasing challenge to and violation of God’s minimal restrictions (various passages from Exodus 20 to Deuteronomy).
Too Few Restrictions
God appears also accused by some of negligently and cruelly allowing adversity because He purportedly could and should have utilized His apparently Biblically-suggested omnipotence and omniscience to prevent Adam and Eve from making the wrong choice in the Garden.
However, the Bible appears to suggest that God established an environment with only one restriction, that God made that restriction clear and that God left the choice of whether or not to abide by that restriction to Adam and Eve. The Bible appears to suggest that Adam and Eve ultimately chose to accept a false depiction of God and, as a result, the corrupt leadership of the falsifier rather than the apparently falsely-maligned leadership of God. As a result, as the Bible appears to suggest, human perspective and discernment was damagingly altered, apparently resulting in less-wise decision-making that resulted in negative outcomes.
If God had prevented the possibility of undesirable human outcome by eliminating human capacity to choose non-compliance with God’s design, as God’s accusers appear to suggest He should have, the less-than-fully-informed might, and appear reported often to, accuse God of being too restrictive and of hiding from humanity something beneficial to humanity, perhaps, including the apparently oft-suggested ability of humanity to not need God, as the apparent Biblical “Adam, Eve and serpent” story appears to suggest that Adam and Eve were convinced to erroneously think. The section “Too Many Restrictions” above also attempts to address this perspective.
Responsibility for Adversity
God also appears to be accused of responsibility for human adversity. However, the Bible appears to be reasonably considered to suggest that humanly-caused human adversity is the result of humanity’s decision to reject God’s leadership and to initiate processes with destructive social and other dynamics. I, humbly and respectfully, ultimately refer to God questions regarding the cause of natural adversity.
Arbitrariness
This apparent accusation against God appears to be that God’s arbitrary preference for Abel’s sacrifice provoked Cain to kill Abel.
Several passages including Matthew 23:35, Hebrews 11, and 1st John 3 appear to refer to the story and appear to suggest that Cain was in the wrong. A quick search near the Cain and Abel story appears not to reveal specification of a lamb rather than vegetation. However, Genesis 4:6 appears to suggest that, when Cain became angry regarding the apparently rejected vegetation sacrifice and before Cain committed his later deed, God gently appealed to Cain regarding the correlation between acceptance and doing right. Although the basis of wrong appears not clearly specified to readers in the text, it appears reasonable to conclude that the basis might have been made clear.
If so, it appears that Cain might have altered the guideline, perhaps for reasons some might consider somewhat admirable. Based upon the rejection, Cain appears suggested to make an illogical choice: causing harm to Abel although Abel does not appear suggested to have harmed Cain. Cain might have distortedly attributed his rejection to Abel. This perhaps exemplifies the distorted perspective that the Bible appears to suggest resulted from the damaged relationship and connection to God apparently Biblically suggested to result from Adam and Eve’s rejection of God.
If God’s apparently suggested advise to Cain and the New Testament consensus regarding Cain is accepted as contextually suggesting Cain’s error, it appears reasonable to suggest that, if Cain is perceived to have been provoked, the perceiver’s solution would appear to suggest that impropriety not to be rejected. Implementation of this solution appears reasonably expected to result in the conditions which appear to give rise to the apparent accusation of some that God offers too few restrictions, as discussed above.
The Misdeeds of Fallible Human Followers
The Bible appears to include various accounts of human fallible judgment, even among the self-proclaimed followers of God. Some accusations appear to attribute to God the fallibility of those who claim to believe in God. In light of humanity’s apparently Biblically suggested choice to reject God’s leadership and the apparent resulting damage done to human discernment, such accounts of fallible judgment appear attributable to humanity’s choices rather than to God.
Punishment of Humanity
The Bible’s apparent description of God’s punishment of humanity for sufficiently egregious violation of God’s guidelines appears questioned. In light of the apparent Biblically suggested propriety and clarity of God’s guidelines and patience exhibited by God regarding such violations, the Bible’s apparently described punishment of humanity by God appears reasonably considered appropriate. The punishment humanity appears to inflict upon humanity appears reported to, at times, be quite severe and compounded by humanity’s fallible discernment of right, wrong, innocence and guilt.
God’s Assertion of Sovereignty
Accusations against God appear to include a suggestion that the Bible’s apparent description of God declaring His sovereignty and requiring humanity’s acknowledgement thereof appears to depict God as petty. However, the Bible appears to suggest that God’s sovereignty is the fundamental premise of reality. If that is the case, making that clear appears reasonable.
Certain accusations appear to suggest that God hasn't made his guidelines clear, as described above. God’s allowing Abraham’s lineage to exemplify human relationship with God might have been challenged by other nations or God might otherwise have recognized the propriety of making clear His sovereignty.
The Unsure Accusations
Other examples appear unclear. However, unspecified context might be important to understand them. The less positive alternative appears very inconsistent with God’s character as elsewhere and even juxtapositionally described.
Accusation Summary
An apparently reasonable theory appears to be that any reality that God provides and any outcome that results appears to be subjectable to retrospective accusation of fault toward God. To wit:
If God creates an excellent environment and establishes guidelines for human living, God might be accused of restricting human choice and potential.
If God removes human and/or environmental potential for violating those guidelines, God might be accused of being over-protective, of not sufficiently trusting humanity, of not allowing choice, of effectively forcing obedience, of unmeritously protecting humanity from nearly-guaranteed disobedience (Old Testament book of Job), and/or of doubting the “design strength” of God’s creation.
If God does not remove the potential for guideline violation and violation follows, God might be accused of negligently not protecting humanity from and/or preparing humanity for the potential for guideline violation, and/or of even maliciously plotting humanity’s harm. In addition, God might be accused of being overly punitive for banning humanity from the garden of Eden for its first violation on the basis that humanity appears to have had insufficient training and/or experience with violation-conducive circumstance.
If God does not remove the potential for violation and violation does not follow, God might be accused of, in fact, having removed the potential for violation. Humanity’s obedience might be attributed to a lack of potential for disobedience, rather than to humanity’s trust in and obedience toward God. The accusation might be levied at humanity that humanity would not have obeyed if potential for disobedience truly existed (Old Testament book of Job).
This tendency to find fault with God regardless of circumstance appears Biblically initially associated with Lucifer and the serpent. That tendency appears to support the apparently Biblically-suggested requirement of faith based upon existing evidence as a key ingredient of relationship and interaction with God.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Religious Diversity
by BlogSpotThinker
September 17, 2011
(Revised October 4, 2011)
Theories Regarding The Origins of Religious Diversity
The Bible appears to suggest that, initially, God and humanity had a close relationship and that humanity, somehow, was convinced to reject or otherwise abandon relationship with God. The Bible appears to further suggest that, as a result, individuals’ recollection and/or understanding about God deteriorated or was purposely and inappropriately replaced with humanly-preferred concepts, leading to the diversity of religions today.
This would appear to suggest the apparently reasonable theory that there is one God and that differing religions refer to that God or some interpretation or modified version.
Theories Regarding God and Human Individualism
Regarding individualism in the God/human relationship, the Bible appears to suggest that relationship between God and humanity involves certain facets that appear to apply somewhat similarly among individuals (Adam, Eve and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil: Genesis 2). Violation of these of God-given guidelines, suggested to be based upon human assertion of individuality, appears described by the Bible as not sanctioned by God, but forgivable by God.
However, the Bible’s apparent depiction of an apparent conflict of opinion between Moses, Aaron and Miriam regarding God’s demands also appears to suggest that the God/human relationship also appears somewhat individualized (Numbers 12).
In summary, the Bible appears to suggest that relationship with God should be prioritized and that questions regarding God and relationship to God should be individually referred to God (James 1: 5, 6).
September 17, 2011
(Revised October 4, 2011)
Theories Regarding The Origins of Religious Diversity
The Bible appears to suggest that, initially, God and humanity had a close relationship and that humanity, somehow, was convinced to reject or otherwise abandon relationship with God. The Bible appears to further suggest that, as a result, individuals’ recollection and/or understanding about God deteriorated or was purposely and inappropriately replaced with humanly-preferred concepts, leading to the diversity of religions today.
This would appear to suggest the apparently reasonable theory that there is one God and that differing religions refer to that God or some interpretation or modified version.
Theories Regarding God and Human Individualism
Regarding individualism in the God/human relationship, the Bible appears to suggest that relationship between God and humanity involves certain facets that appear to apply somewhat similarly among individuals (Adam, Eve and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil: Genesis 2). Violation of these of God-given guidelines, suggested to be based upon human assertion of individuality, appears described by the Bible as not sanctioned by God, but forgivable by God.
However, the Bible’s apparent depiction of an apparent conflict of opinion between Moses, Aaron and Miriam regarding God’s demands also appears to suggest that the God/human relationship also appears somewhat individualized (Numbers 12).
In summary, the Bible appears to suggest that relationship with God should be prioritized and that questions regarding God and relationship to God should be individually referred to God (James 1: 5, 6).
Thursday, September 15, 2011
God and Economics
by BlogSpotThinker
September 15, 2011
God’s Natural Economics vs. Contemporary Economics
A reasonable theory appears to be that we have altered what the Bible appears to refer to as the original economic system, to what it is now, possibly for admirable reasons. However, some undesirable side-effects appear to make this revised economic system a much less just economic system.
Revised Economic Access
To clarify, the Bible appears to suggest that, initially, God created resources for the taking. Apparently, each person was generally responsible for retrieving them from the environment, roughly based upon consumption. The economic system appears to have been revised by industrialization and capitalism which appear reported to have increased resource production, but also to have put humanity in charge of other humans’ access to resources. Analysis of Biblical and secular history appears to suggest that the new economic system’s development of the incentive toward selfishness appears reasonably considered to have been compounded by humanity’s apparent “post-fall-of-man” tendency toward injustice.
Apparently, as a result, the basis for human access to resources has gone from free access based upon the needs of the accessor to being controlled by another person and being based on the apparently illogical, unrelated factor of whether accessing those resources represents a sufficient benefit for the controlling person.
An additional undesirable side-effect of the revised economic system appears to be that it appears to connect two apparently unrelated factors: the resources Person A needs for the day and what Person B wants Person A to do that day. Although the two concepts might at times correlate, they also might well not correlate at all.
Another undesirable side-effect of revised economic system appears to be that long-standing economic philosophy and tradition, as a result, appear to consider lack of economic opportunity to be an unfortunate, but acceptable and expectable circumstance and outcome of economics.
Revised Economic Incentives
This economic system revision also appears to replace two apparently important and well-designed incentive systems. The first well-designed incentive appears to be to obtain resources needed for consumption. The second well-designed incentive appears to be to work at what needs to be accomplished.
The revised economic system’s first revised incentive appears to be to obtain surplus consumption resources in order to gain influence. The new second incentive appears to be to work at that which will maximize influence. This new second incentive is not to be confused with working more to provide for appropriate, natural greater consumption needs.
The result of the new system appears to be that neither work nor resource allocation is related to consumption needs but rather, to political influence. In this scenario, desire to work appears to fluctuate with pay rather than what needs to be accomplished, the apparently natural, true basis.
The Possible Long-Term Solution
The Bible appears to suggest that the long-term solution for humanity’s economic problems appears to be to resolve its apparent spiritual problem, a damaged relationship and connection between God and humanity. Restoration of this relationship and connection appears suggested to restore human connection to the wisdom that comes from that relationship. The result appears suggested to include improved interaction between God and humanity and among humanity, allowing for the restoration of the simple economic system, devoid of economic injustice, that appears Biblically suggested to have worked perfectly prior to the “fall of man”.
The Possible Short-Term Solution (Matthew 20:1-16)
In the interim, until this relationship between God and humanity is fully restored, given that we appear to have put human economic systems in charge of resources access distribution, and that those systems appear to have upset the appropriate balance of resource access distribution, there appears to be no reason why an employer, such as the one in Matthew 20:1-16, cognizant of these factors, should be denigrated for giving a day’s resources to a deserving person – more than just a human resource object – whom the revised economic system might reasonably be considered to have robbed of the appropriate opportunity to access those resources. It appears important to mention that Matthew 20:1-16 appears intended to convey a similar spiritual rather than economic moral.
The unemployed in Matthew 20:1-16 apparently described themselves as not working because they hadn’t been hired, not because they didn’t want to work. Although those who considered themselves worthy of superior opportunity (as others might have agreed) might also consider themselves robbed of justice because they didn’t receive superior opportunity in this story, those who began the story robbed of any appropriate opportunity might consider the story to represent a great day for the “little man”.
September 15, 2011
God’s Natural Economics vs. Contemporary Economics
A reasonable theory appears to be that we have altered what the Bible appears to refer to as the original economic system, to what it is now, possibly for admirable reasons. However, some undesirable side-effects appear to make this revised economic system a much less just economic system.
Revised Economic Access
To clarify, the Bible appears to suggest that, initially, God created resources for the taking. Apparently, each person was generally responsible for retrieving them from the environment, roughly based upon consumption. The economic system appears to have been revised by industrialization and capitalism which appear reported to have increased resource production, but also to have put humanity in charge of other humans’ access to resources. Analysis of Biblical and secular history appears to suggest that the new economic system’s development of the incentive toward selfishness appears reasonably considered to have been compounded by humanity’s apparent “post-fall-of-man” tendency toward injustice.
Apparently, as a result, the basis for human access to resources has gone from free access based upon the needs of the accessor to being controlled by another person and being based on the apparently illogical, unrelated factor of whether accessing those resources represents a sufficient benefit for the controlling person.
An additional undesirable side-effect of the revised economic system appears to be that it appears to connect two apparently unrelated factors: the resources Person A needs for the day and what Person B wants Person A to do that day. Although the two concepts might at times correlate, they also might well not correlate at all.
Another undesirable side-effect of revised economic system appears to be that long-standing economic philosophy and tradition, as a result, appear to consider lack of economic opportunity to be an unfortunate, but acceptable and expectable circumstance and outcome of economics.
Revised Economic Incentives
This economic system revision also appears to replace two apparently important and well-designed incentive systems. The first well-designed incentive appears to be to obtain resources needed for consumption. The second well-designed incentive appears to be to work at what needs to be accomplished.
The revised economic system’s first revised incentive appears to be to obtain surplus consumption resources in order to gain influence. The new second incentive appears to be to work at that which will maximize influence. This new second incentive is not to be confused with working more to provide for appropriate, natural greater consumption needs.
The result of the new system appears to be that neither work nor resource allocation is related to consumption needs but rather, to political influence. In this scenario, desire to work appears to fluctuate with pay rather than what needs to be accomplished, the apparently natural, true basis.
The Possible Long-Term Solution
The Bible appears to suggest that the long-term solution for humanity’s economic problems appears to be to resolve its apparent spiritual problem, a damaged relationship and connection between God and humanity. Restoration of this relationship and connection appears suggested to restore human connection to the wisdom that comes from that relationship. The result appears suggested to include improved interaction between God and humanity and among humanity, allowing for the restoration of the simple economic system, devoid of economic injustice, that appears Biblically suggested to have worked perfectly prior to the “fall of man”.
The Possible Short-Term Solution (Matthew 20:1-16)
In the interim, until this relationship between God and humanity is fully restored, given that we appear to have put human economic systems in charge of resources access distribution, and that those systems appear to have upset the appropriate balance of resource access distribution, there appears to be no reason why an employer, such as the one in Matthew 20:1-16, cognizant of these factors, should be denigrated for giving a day’s resources to a deserving person – more than just a human resource object – whom the revised economic system might reasonably be considered to have robbed of the appropriate opportunity to access those resources. It appears important to mention that Matthew 20:1-16 appears intended to convey a similar spiritual rather than economic moral.
The unemployed in Matthew 20:1-16 apparently described themselves as not working because they hadn’t been hired, not because they didn’t want to work. Although those who considered themselves worthy of superior opportunity (as others might have agreed) might also consider themselves robbed of justice because they didn’t receive superior opportunity in this story, those who began the story robbed of any appropriate opportunity might consider the story to represent a great day for the “little man”.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Israel, Abraham, Isaac and the Sacrifice
by BlogSpotThinker
September 13, 2011
(Revised October 4, 2011)
Overview
Genesis 11 through Genesis 22 appear to be intended to describe God’s development of the nation of Israel, beginning with the travel of Terah, Abraham’s father from his homeland, Ur of the Chaldeans, toward Canaan. An apparently reasonable suggestion appears to be that, perhaps, Ur of the Chaldeans was a community that was involved in, or close to one or more communities that were involved in, religious child sacrifice. As a result, perhaps Abraham was familiar with the practice, and, despite possible anguish regarding the idea, especially in light of the conditions that the Bible appears to suggest surrounded the birth of Isaac, was willing to accept it based upon Abraham’s faith in this apparently “new” God that the Bible appears to suggest had apparently approached Abraham in Genesis 12.
The Bible appears to suggest that God emphasized the salient point of Abrahams’ perspective, not as being Abraham’s willingness to accomplish a horrendous act, but as being willing to not withholding his own son from an act that might have been viewed by Abraham not as necessarily inconceivable or horrible, but perhaps somewhat common, yet representative of a sacrifice of that which Abraham considered most valuable. In contrast to Adam and Eve, Abraham, here appears to exemplify the spirit of the first of the Ten Commandments: nothing and no one is to be esteemed above God.
The Possible Potential for Humanity’s Idolatry of Human Logic and Reason
The human school of thought appears to esteem logic and reason above human credentials, perhaps for good reason. Reports appear to suggest that many attempts at deception as well as many good-faith errors by the credentialed are considered to have been revealed by analysis of the logic and reason of their suggestions. As a result, secular humanity appears to consider humanly-understood logic and reason to be the “litmus test” for propriety, an apparent reliance that the Bible appears to suggest has been adopted since humanity (Adam and Eve) was convinced to turned its back on God, the original and still unreplaced standard for propriety.
One possible moral of this Biblical incident appears to suggest that God is supreme authority, even over human logic and reason. To clarify, the suggestion appears not to be that God is above logic and reason, but that logic and reason are established by God and that, therefore, it is God who establishes the point of reference for what is logical and reasonable. Further, humanity’s inability to recognize existent logic and reason appears Biblically suggested not to impact the existence of said logic and reason. Perhaps human knowledge is too limited to recognize God’s suggested superior knowledge, logic and reason. Even differences in human knowledge might result in different conclusions regarding what is logical and reasonable. Reasonable examples of such differences might include the confusion that a child might experience regarding pain imposed by the application of iodine to a cut, the medical practice of removing a body part to save the amputee's life, or threatening potential committers of homicide with death to prevent their carrying out their misdeed.
Potential Logic and Reason of Abraham
The general human logic regarding the Abraham/Isaac incident appears suggested to be that harm is not good and is not to be introduced without good reason, and that the information regarding the circumstance of the Abraham/Isaac incident appears not to suggest appropriate introduction of the apparently God-suggested harm.
An apparently reasonable theory appears to be that, given the additional background information that God knew Abraham well enough to know Abraham’s ability to appropriately experience the suggestion, the harm-introducing suggestion might appear less illogical and unreasonable.
God’s Apparent Purpose in the Incident
The Bible appears to suggest that this incident occurred at the apparent inception of the nation of Israel and that God intended for Israel to exemplify to the world the potential for the God/human relationship. In light of this and the preceding suggestions, a possible purpose of the apparently Biblically-suggested Abraham and Isaac incident appears to be the establishment (or perhaps reestablishment, if Adam and Eve are considered) of the fundamental ground rule that there is never a valid reason to disobey or distrust God.
The Role of Fundamental Ground Rules
The role of fundamental ground rules appears not to be taken lightly. Consequently, I tread humbly and lightly. Therefore, it appears prudent to clarify that this post does not suggest that every human suggestion, regarding God or regarding any other subject, that cannot be proved to be illogical should be accepted. The Bible appears to suggest that only God merits such faith - not others claiming to be God's interpreter or other claimed representative - just God, and it appears to recommend referring and entrusting questions about any matter directly to God.
September 13, 2011
(Revised October 4, 2011)
Overview
Genesis 11 through Genesis 22 appear to be intended to describe God’s development of the nation of Israel, beginning with the travel of Terah, Abraham’s father from his homeland, Ur of the Chaldeans, toward Canaan. An apparently reasonable suggestion appears to be that, perhaps, Ur of the Chaldeans was a community that was involved in, or close to one or more communities that were involved in, religious child sacrifice. As a result, perhaps Abraham was familiar with the practice, and, despite possible anguish regarding the idea, especially in light of the conditions that the Bible appears to suggest surrounded the birth of Isaac, was willing to accept it based upon Abraham’s faith in this apparently “new” God that the Bible appears to suggest had apparently approached Abraham in Genesis 12.
The Bible appears to suggest that God emphasized the salient point of Abrahams’ perspective, not as being Abraham’s willingness to accomplish a horrendous act, but as being willing to not withholding his own son from an act that might have been viewed by Abraham not as necessarily inconceivable or horrible, but perhaps somewhat common, yet representative of a sacrifice of that which Abraham considered most valuable. In contrast to Adam and Eve, Abraham, here appears to exemplify the spirit of the first of the Ten Commandments: nothing and no one is to be esteemed above God.
The Possible Potential for Humanity’s Idolatry of Human Logic and Reason
The human school of thought appears to esteem logic and reason above human credentials, perhaps for good reason. Reports appear to suggest that many attempts at deception as well as many good-faith errors by the credentialed are considered to have been revealed by analysis of the logic and reason of their suggestions. As a result, secular humanity appears to consider humanly-understood logic and reason to be the “litmus test” for propriety, an apparent reliance that the Bible appears to suggest has been adopted since humanity (Adam and Eve) was convinced to turned its back on God, the original and still unreplaced standard for propriety.
One possible moral of this Biblical incident appears to suggest that God is supreme authority, even over human logic and reason. To clarify, the suggestion appears not to be that God is above logic and reason, but that logic and reason are established by God and that, therefore, it is God who establishes the point of reference for what is logical and reasonable. Further, humanity’s inability to recognize existent logic and reason appears Biblically suggested not to impact the existence of said logic and reason. Perhaps human knowledge is too limited to recognize God’s suggested superior knowledge, logic and reason. Even differences in human knowledge might result in different conclusions regarding what is logical and reasonable. Reasonable examples of such differences might include the confusion that a child might experience regarding pain imposed by the application of iodine to a cut, the medical practice of removing a body part to save the amputee's life, or threatening potential committers of homicide with death to prevent their carrying out their misdeed.
Potential Logic and Reason of Abraham
The general human logic regarding the Abraham/Isaac incident appears suggested to be that harm is not good and is not to be introduced without good reason, and that the information regarding the circumstance of the Abraham/Isaac incident appears not to suggest appropriate introduction of the apparently God-suggested harm.
An apparently reasonable theory appears to be that, given the additional background information that God knew Abraham well enough to know Abraham’s ability to appropriately experience the suggestion, the harm-introducing suggestion might appear less illogical and unreasonable.
God’s Apparent Purpose in the Incident
The Bible appears to suggest that this incident occurred at the apparent inception of the nation of Israel and that God intended for Israel to exemplify to the world the potential for the God/human relationship. In light of this and the preceding suggestions, a possible purpose of the apparently Biblically-suggested Abraham and Isaac incident appears to be the establishment (or perhaps reestablishment, if Adam and Eve are considered) of the fundamental ground rule that there is never a valid reason to disobey or distrust God.
The Role of Fundamental Ground Rules
The role of fundamental ground rules appears not to be taken lightly. Consequently, I tread humbly and lightly. Therefore, it appears prudent to clarify that this post does not suggest that every human suggestion, regarding God or regarding any other subject, that cannot be proved to be illogical should be accepted. The Bible appears to suggest that only God merits such faith - not others claiming to be God's interpreter or other claimed representative - just God, and it appears to recommend referring and entrusting questions about any matter directly to God.
Self-Validation of God and The Bible
by BlogSpotThinker
September 13, 2011
The Bible and the God that appears to be suggested by the Bible appear suggested to be self-validating: this is to say that they certify themselves. Science might typically suggest such self-validation to be of little value to scientific inquiry since science appears to rely upon multiple independent certifications of an assertion as a typically sufficient indicator of the assertion’s validity.
In the case of the apparently suggested claims regarding the Bible and those of the Bible regarding God, God appears described by the Bible as the supreme being of all of reality and the Bible appears described by those who subscribe to it as documentation of the history of the relationship between that God and the nation of Israel, a documentation apparently suggested to be inspired by that God.
This God also appears to be described by the Bible as having a nature that includes what might reasonably be referred to as human physical reality. That nature also appears described as extending beyond said physical reality into what might be referred to as extra-physical or supernatural reality.
These two aspects of the suggested nature of this God appear to impact human understandings regarding this God such that little if any physical evidence appears available that is considered to be irrefutably and exclusively associatable with this God. In addition, the Bible’s apparent claim of God as the supreme entity of all reality appears to preclude the existence of a higher, entity as a certifying entity.
A reasonable example appears to be that of a business whose sole owner claims to be sole owner. Within the company, validation of the owner’s claim cannot be accomplished via certification by a superior entity since the owner’s supreme position as owner appears reasonable suggested to preclude the existence of any superior entity. Validation appears solely accomplishable via lower-positioned entities who, by faith, have accepted the owner’s claim of ownership.
As a result, science’s apparent certification requirement of multiple validations from independent physical sources appears considered to render science incapable of certifying God. Apparently, the sole basis for acceptance of the existence of this God is faith, defined as the decision to believe in the absence of irrefutable proof.
September 13, 2011
The Bible and the God that appears to be suggested by the Bible appear suggested to be self-validating: this is to say that they certify themselves. Science might typically suggest such self-validation to be of little value to scientific inquiry since science appears to rely upon multiple independent certifications of an assertion as a typically sufficient indicator of the assertion’s validity.
In the case of the apparently suggested claims regarding the Bible and those of the Bible regarding God, God appears described by the Bible as the supreme being of all of reality and the Bible appears described by those who subscribe to it as documentation of the history of the relationship between that God and the nation of Israel, a documentation apparently suggested to be inspired by that God.
This God also appears to be described by the Bible as having a nature that includes what might reasonably be referred to as human physical reality. That nature also appears described as extending beyond said physical reality into what might be referred to as extra-physical or supernatural reality.
These two aspects of the suggested nature of this God appear to impact human understandings regarding this God such that little if any physical evidence appears available that is considered to be irrefutably and exclusively associatable with this God. In addition, the Bible’s apparent claim of God as the supreme entity of all reality appears to preclude the existence of a higher, entity as a certifying entity.
A reasonable example appears to be that of a business whose sole owner claims to be sole owner. Within the company, validation of the owner’s claim cannot be accomplished via certification by a superior entity since the owner’s supreme position as owner appears reasonable suggested to preclude the existence of any superior entity. Validation appears solely accomplishable via lower-positioned entities who, by faith, have accepted the owner’s claim of ownership.
As a result, science’s apparent certification requirement of multiple validations from independent physical sources appears considered to render science incapable of certifying God. Apparently, the sole basis for acceptance of the existence of this God is faith, defined as the decision to believe in the absence of irrefutable proof.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Truth as Science, Philosophy or Religion
by BlogSpotThinker
September 7, 2011
(Revised September 19, 2011)
Truth appears to be considered by some to be a concern of philosophy rather than of science. I humbly submit that, for the purpose of currently discussing this topic, I consider the terms “truth” and “accuracy” to be interchangeable. In that context, science appears reasonably considered to be concerned about the accurate representation of or “truth” about phenomena.
Religion appears reasonably considered to be focused on determining truth. However, “truth” here appears reasonably considered to refer to “moral truth”. The portion of science that addresses the physical might be less than focused on such concepts. The term “portion of science” is used here since science appears considered to include the study of all reality. Some of the apparently reported moral philosophers appear also reported to have been physical scientists and to have considered science to incorporate all of reality.
An apparently subtle, yet possibly material distinction appears to be that religion appears not to claim the capability to “establish”, “determine” or “systematically or logically deduce” moral truth. Religion appears to suggest the existence of an entity (God) that establishes those values.
“Facts” and “truth” appear suggested by some to be capable of opposing each other. However, the two appear to be defined such that they cannot oppose each other. A fact appears reasonably defined to be an assertion that is true, or in other words, a “truth”. Perhaps a perspective based upon an incomplete set of facts and/or truth might be untrue but, apparently, facts, by definition, are true.
September 7, 2011
(Revised September 19, 2011)
Truth appears to be considered by some to be a concern of philosophy rather than of science. I humbly submit that, for the purpose of currently discussing this topic, I consider the terms “truth” and “accuracy” to be interchangeable. In that context, science appears reasonably considered to be concerned about the accurate representation of or “truth” about phenomena.
Religion appears reasonably considered to be focused on determining truth. However, “truth” here appears reasonably considered to refer to “moral truth”. The portion of science that addresses the physical might be less than focused on such concepts. The term “portion of science” is used here since science appears considered to include the study of all reality. Some of the apparently reported moral philosophers appear also reported to have been physical scientists and to have considered science to incorporate all of reality.
An apparently subtle, yet possibly material distinction appears to be that religion appears not to claim the capability to “establish”, “determine” or “systematically or logically deduce” moral truth. Religion appears to suggest the existence of an entity (God) that establishes those values.
“Facts” and “truth” appear suggested by some to be capable of opposing each other. However, the two appear to be defined such that they cannot oppose each other. A fact appears reasonably defined to be an assertion that is true, or in other words, a “truth”. Perhaps a perspective based upon an incomplete set of facts and/or truth might be untrue but, apparently, facts, by definition, are true.
Science and God
by BlogSpotThinker
September 7, 2011
Regarding science’s conclusion about God, two circumstances appear suggested to limit science’s ability to opine. Firstly, if science is defined as addressing solely what can be observed and tested directly, then science appears reasonably considered to be unable to offer an opinion regarding God. However, science appears to consider itself capable of opining regarding phenomena that it cannot directly observe and test if it can indirectly observe and test that phenomena by directly observing and testing the effects of the phenomena. Electrons, life and thought appear to be examples of such indirectly observed and tested phenomena.
Science, in such instances, appears to use logic, reason and interpolation (using directly observed and/or tested phenomena) to suggest the existence and/or behavior of such directly unobservable and untestable phenomena. Science appears capable, therefore, of directly observing physical phenomena suggested to be an effect of God; and the effects of phenomena whose natures appear to be other than natural or physical (the supernatural) such as life and thought and, perhaps, electrons. Science also appears capable of recognizing what might be considered logical phenomena such as apparently missing components of human interaction structure such as values standards and reports of a supernatural source of life and standards.
Science appears capable of logically, reasonably and rationally combining these components, and supporting the suggestion that they appear to logically, reasonably and rationally suggest the existence of an entity matching to some degree the reports of a supernatural entity.
September 7, 2011
Regarding science’s conclusion about God, two circumstances appear suggested to limit science’s ability to opine. Firstly, if science is defined as addressing solely what can be observed and tested directly, then science appears reasonably considered to be unable to offer an opinion regarding God. However, science appears to consider itself capable of opining regarding phenomena that it cannot directly observe and test if it can indirectly observe and test that phenomena by directly observing and testing the effects of the phenomena. Electrons, life and thought appear to be examples of such indirectly observed and tested phenomena.
Science, in such instances, appears to use logic, reason and interpolation (using directly observed and/or tested phenomena) to suggest the existence and/or behavior of such directly unobservable and untestable phenomena. Science appears capable, therefore, of directly observing physical phenomena suggested to be an effect of God; and the effects of phenomena whose natures appear to be other than natural or physical (the supernatural) such as life and thought and, perhaps, electrons. Science also appears capable of recognizing what might be considered logical phenomena such as apparently missing components of human interaction structure such as values standards and reports of a supernatural source of life and standards.
Science appears capable of logically, reasonably and rationally combining these components, and supporting the suggestion that they appear to logically, reasonably and rationally suggest the existence of an entity matching to some degree the reports of a supernatural entity.
Biblical Religion as Fallibility Escape
by BlogSpotThinker
September 7, 2011
Some appear to suggest that Biblical beliefs are essentially constructed to cover for human frailty without addressing the real problems of human frailty. However, the Biblical Old Testament appears to quite thoroughly address human frailties by illustrating the lineage of those frailties (Adam, Eve and the Tree, Lucifer’s inappropriate ambition and subsequent exile); the effect of those frailties (Adam, Eve and their exile from the Garden); examples of the achievability of greater character goals (Noah, Moses and the prophets); God’s presence and power even among the frail (David, Samson); context-sensitive, comprehensive behavior guidelines (Genesis 1 and 2; Exodus 20 through Deuteronomy); God’s disdain and promised punishment for preferring those frailties (the “doom” prophecies, Jeremiah 32:32-34); and God’s appeals to turn from those frailties even while foretelling the doomed future of those frailties (Jeremiah 18: 7-8).
September 7, 2011
Some appear to suggest that Biblical beliefs are essentially constructed to cover for human frailty without addressing the real problems of human frailty. However, the Biblical Old Testament appears to quite thoroughly address human frailties by illustrating the lineage of those frailties (Adam, Eve and the Tree, Lucifer’s inappropriate ambition and subsequent exile); the effect of those frailties (Adam, Eve and their exile from the Garden); examples of the achievability of greater character goals (Noah, Moses and the prophets); God’s presence and power even among the frail (David, Samson); context-sensitive, comprehensive behavior guidelines (Genesis 1 and 2; Exodus 20 through Deuteronomy); God’s disdain and promised punishment for preferring those frailties (the “doom” prophecies, Jeremiah 32:32-34); and God’s appeals to turn from those frailties even while foretelling the doomed future of those frailties (Jeremiah 18: 7-8).
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
The Role of Religion in Social Conflict
by BlogSpotThinker
September 6, 2011
(Revised September 19, 2011)
In one way, belief in God appears similar to other issues in that difference of perspective constitutes a conflict. Reports appear to suggest divorces are based on sufficiently different views on money and the propriety of extra-marital relationships; physical fights appear reported to be based upon differences in the way a look was interpreted; feuds appear reported regarding borrowed possessions or actual or perceived wrongs; civil wars appear reported to have been fought over civil rights; and world wars apparently reported fought over socio-economic strategy, imperialism and related issues. As a result, it seems somewhat misleading to blame divisiveness and social conflict on belief in God.
On the other hand, belief in God appears suggested to be the fundamental issue of all reality. Per this perspective, all non-discretionary issues, if not all issues, appear to be impacted by whether God whether God exists, whether God establishes the standard of right and wrong, and what that standard is. Importantly, as well, the existence of God appears reasonably suggested to impact possibly the two next most important aspects of human reality: purpose and destiny. If all issues are based upon these factors, then different understandings about God’s existence and philosophy (possibly, the definition of religion) might reasonably be expected to be the focus of a large portion of social controversy.
Concern regarding the spiritual impact of such differences of opinion regarding God might constitute the most common concern regarding changes in the spiritual beliefs of valued associates.
In addition, perhaps the “tinderbox effect” might also be attributable to the theory that personal relationship with God appears to be considered an important facet of belief in God. The questioning of the value of one’s relationship with God might also be perceived as a personal affront.
History and the Bible appear to suggest that there is no solution for such conflict over religious or secular issues other than God. Attempting to humanly, even violently eradicate religion or secularism appears reported to be unsuccessful. The freedom of choice that God appears to have granted to individuals appears to allow both religion or secularism to grow. The suggested solution appears to be for each individual to recognize and voluntarily acknowledge God’s existence and sovereignty. If God is indeed sovereign, then voluntary individual recognition and acceptance of God’s sovereignty and direct reference to God for understanding regarding relationship with God appears reasonably considered to resolve the problem.
September 6, 2011
(Revised September 19, 2011)
In one way, belief in God appears similar to other issues in that difference of perspective constitutes a conflict. Reports appear to suggest divorces are based on sufficiently different views on money and the propriety of extra-marital relationships; physical fights appear reported to be based upon differences in the way a look was interpreted; feuds appear reported regarding borrowed possessions or actual or perceived wrongs; civil wars appear reported to have been fought over civil rights; and world wars apparently reported fought over socio-economic strategy, imperialism and related issues. As a result, it seems somewhat misleading to blame divisiveness and social conflict on belief in God.
On the other hand, belief in God appears suggested to be the fundamental issue of all reality. Per this perspective, all non-discretionary issues, if not all issues, appear to be impacted by whether God whether God exists, whether God establishes the standard of right and wrong, and what that standard is. Importantly, as well, the existence of God appears reasonably suggested to impact possibly the two next most important aspects of human reality: purpose and destiny. If all issues are based upon these factors, then different understandings about God’s existence and philosophy (possibly, the definition of religion) might reasonably be expected to be the focus of a large portion of social controversy.
Concern regarding the spiritual impact of such differences of opinion regarding God might constitute the most common concern regarding changes in the spiritual beliefs of valued associates.
In addition, perhaps the “tinderbox effect” might also be attributable to the theory that personal relationship with God appears to be considered an important facet of belief in God. The questioning of the value of one’s relationship with God might also be perceived as a personal affront.
History and the Bible appear to suggest that there is no solution for such conflict over religious or secular issues other than God. Attempting to humanly, even violently eradicate religion or secularism appears reported to be unsuccessful. The freedom of choice that God appears to have granted to individuals appears to allow both religion or secularism to grow. The suggested solution appears to be for each individual to recognize and voluntarily acknowledge God’s existence and sovereignty. If God is indeed sovereign, then voluntary individual recognition and acceptance of God’s sovereignty and direct reference to God for understanding regarding relationship with God appears reasonably considered to resolve the problem.
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Faith and Science: The Role of Doubt
by BlogSpotThinker
September 4, 2011
(Revised September 17, 2011)
Doubt regarding the validity of assertions appears to have different impacts when experienced regarding science and regarding God.
Generally, science’s focus might be described as the desire to understand some part of reality. Although lives might be affected by scientific conclusions such as within health science, the individual scientific inquirer might desire appropriate perspective, but, in general, appears to fear no worse outcome than continued work toward the goal of discovery. Doubt, in this context, might be considered an asset.
Belief in God, however, appears reasonably considered to be the fundamental issue of reality. Issues at that level appear considered to have life-altering impact. As a result, the perception of potential error in such a fundamental belief and in other beliefs which are based on it appears reasonably disconcerting.
In addition, the Bible’s appears to suggest that a primary aspect of the God/human relationship is belief in God. Consequently, perhaps, an individual might perceive potential misunderstandings about God or what God desires to be a negative reflection on the individual’s faith in God and, in turn, upon God’s acceptance of the individual.
While some might consider the relatively greater impact of doubt to be irrational, in light of the Biblically suggested importance of God’s existence and of humanity’s relationship with and trust in God, the relatively greater implications of doubt to believers in God appears reasonable. Perhaps an important aspect of relationship with God is acceptance of God’s leadership and sovereignty, and focus on individual relationship with God, which appears suggested to allow each individual to entrust growth in understanding to God.
Perhaps, when relationship with God is an individual’s focus rather than doctrine, doubt regarding doctrine or observed phenomena might be considered by the individual not to be a matter warranting fear of error, but a matter for further and possibly continuous inquiry. In this case, inquiry might or might not include referral to scientific tests or other study. The individual’s primary course of inquiry, however, appears Biblically suggested to be to God via individual relationship with God.
September 4, 2011
(Revised September 17, 2011)
Doubt regarding the validity of assertions appears to have different impacts when experienced regarding science and regarding God.
Generally, science’s focus might be described as the desire to understand some part of reality. Although lives might be affected by scientific conclusions such as within health science, the individual scientific inquirer might desire appropriate perspective, but, in general, appears to fear no worse outcome than continued work toward the goal of discovery. Doubt, in this context, might be considered an asset.
Belief in God, however, appears reasonably considered to be the fundamental issue of reality. Issues at that level appear considered to have life-altering impact. As a result, the perception of potential error in such a fundamental belief and in other beliefs which are based on it appears reasonably disconcerting.
In addition, the Bible’s appears to suggest that a primary aspect of the God/human relationship is belief in God. Consequently, perhaps, an individual might perceive potential misunderstandings about God or what God desires to be a negative reflection on the individual’s faith in God and, in turn, upon God’s acceptance of the individual.
While some might consider the relatively greater impact of doubt to be irrational, in light of the Biblically suggested importance of God’s existence and of humanity’s relationship with and trust in God, the relatively greater implications of doubt to believers in God appears reasonable. Perhaps an important aspect of relationship with God is acceptance of God’s leadership and sovereignty, and focus on individual relationship with God, which appears suggested to allow each individual to entrust growth in understanding to God.
Perhaps, when relationship with God is an individual’s focus rather than doctrine, doubt regarding doctrine or observed phenomena might be considered by the individual not to be a matter warranting fear of error, but a matter for further and possibly continuous inquiry. In this case, inquiry might or might not include referral to scientific tests or other study. The individual’s primary course of inquiry, however, appears Biblically suggested to be to God via individual relationship with God.
Evolution and Creationism: The Relative Strength of Supporting Evidence, Logic and Reason
by BlogSpotThinker
September 4, 2011
(Revised September 30, 2011)
Overview
Some appear to consider creationism to be less of a plausible theory than evolution and that creationism has less or no supporting evidence.
From the perspective of the scientific skeptic, the relevant scientific inquiry principles appear to be that (a) evidence of accurate explanations sometimes appears to be reasonably considered to be scientifically verifiable and that (b) evidence of non-factual explanations is believed to not exist, and therefore, to not be scientifically verifiable. The applicable scientific inquiry conjecture appears reasonably considered to be that, of any two competing theories, the one with more scientifically-verifiable evidence is probably the more factual. Apparently then, the experimenter would compare the scientifically-verifiable evidence of evolution and company and the existence of God and the results would appear to indicate more evidence for evolution. The scientific inquirer might interpret the result of this experiment to suggest that evolution is more factual than the theory of the existence of God and of creation.
Disparity of Evidentiary Contexts
A problem appears to be that the Bible appears not to claim to offer currently scientifically-verifiable evidence of the existence of God. The Bible appears to suggest that the nature of God extends beyond that which is humanly verifiable. Further, the Bible appears to suggest that belief in, relationship with and interaction with God is, at least currently, intended to be based upon faith, perhaps, supported by whatever humanly-observable evidence that exists. This would appear to skew the results of the aforementioned test misrepresentingly.
Apparent potential opportunity appears to exist for evidence requestors to perceive potential for this presented perspective to constitute an fraudulent evasive maneuver to avoid fulfilling evidentiary requirements due to lack of merit of the proposed claim. However, this claim regarding appropriate lack of typical evidence appears to have some logical and reasonable basis.
An apparently reasonable illustration appears to be that, if Person A suggests to Person B that Person A’s dolphin is faster than Person B’s dog and Person B suggests that Person A bring the dolphin to a big field so that the dolphin and the dog can race, Person A would appear to be considered to appropriately suggest that dolphins don’t do well in fields and that the dolphin environment is water. If Person A suggests to Person B that Person B bring the dog to the local lake so that the animals can race since Person A has heard that dogs can swim in water, Person B appears to be reasonably considered to appropriately suggest that dogs don’t swim as fast as dogs can run. An apparently reasonable perspective appears to be that a feasible way of running an experiment would be to attempt to allow the animals to show their potential in their respective natural environments and to compare the results.
Similarity of Evidentiary Contexts
In my understanding, evolutionary theory consists of conclusions drawn using scientific logic and reason to “draw lines between the dots” of physical observations such as bones, energy readings, formulas, etc.
Also in my understanding, the same appears to have been done with regard to God as Creator of human existence. As I understand it, similarly scientific logic and reason is used to draw a different picture using the same and perhaps certain other (apparently) scientific observation “dots” that seem not included in the analysis that concludes that there is no God.
Science’s apparently reported tradition of thorough testing and repeatable results appears worthy of respect. However, the possibility of repeating the same tests and achieving the same results that yield less than the appropriate representation of reality appears to leave less room for discounting the existence of God. Added to this appears to be the tendency to, nearly unconsciously, ignore a valid possibility when there is a tendency toward another one.
Belief in God and creationism appear to be characterized by some as mere assumption of God as the answer to all unexplained observation. Upon further review, however, science appears to utilize the same approach regarding evolution and other applications. Evolutionary theory appears to suggest that certain unexplained similarities between apes and humankind were theorized to indicate that humankind came from apes. The term “interpolation” comes to mind.
Science appears as incapable of testing for ape-to-man evolution as some seem to suggest it is incapable of testing for God’s existence unless scientific inquiry can observe a singular bloodline of apes undergoing a series of transformations resulting in a human. Using faster-scale, observable transformation in other entities to validate a similar ape-to-man transformation appears to represent no less a leap of scientific faith as believing in the existence of God whose humanly-perceived attributes and capabilities appear to exist in other apparently, scientifically-recognized entities.
Human Development Via Creation and Via Descendance from Apes
I humbly and respectfully submit the apparently reasonable theory that the apparently Biblically-suggested creation of humanity by God appears somewhat more plausible than the apparent suggestion that humanity descended from apes.
One apparently reasonable reason for this perspective appears to be that the apparently Biblical suggestion that God created humanity includes the apparent Biblical suggestion of the relationship between God and humanity and of the damage done to that relationship. This apparently suggested damage appears to provide the most comprehensive and apparently plausible explanation I have encountered for the apparently reported adverse history and condition of the human experience.
A second apparently reasonable reason for the apparent personal perception and suggestion that the apparently Biblically-suggested creation of humanity by God appears somewhat more plausible than the apparent suggestion that humanity descended from apes is that multiple apparently plausible alternative explanations appear to exist for apparently suggested similarity among living entities, including similarities in bone structure and DNA.
One apparently plausible alternative for said similarity appears to be breeding between less similar entities. Sexual relations between humanity and animals appears to be reported to exist to some extent today. Such sexual relations in ancient history that might have produced offspring with the traits of both sexual partners appears to be reasonably considered to be less than implausible.
A second apparently plausible alternative for said similarity appears to recognize the possibility that God, in the apparently Biblically-suggested account of creation, might have used certain design patterns to create similar, yet distinct entities. The Bible appears to suggest that animals were created prior to humanity. The suggestion that God might have selected the most useful body design yet implemented, and subsequently implemented an enhanced version in the creation of humanity.
September 4, 2011
(Revised September 30, 2011)
Overview
Some appear to consider creationism to be less of a plausible theory than evolution and that creationism has less or no supporting evidence.
From the perspective of the scientific skeptic, the relevant scientific inquiry principles appear to be that (a) evidence of accurate explanations sometimes appears to be reasonably considered to be scientifically verifiable and that (b) evidence of non-factual explanations is believed to not exist, and therefore, to not be scientifically verifiable. The applicable scientific inquiry conjecture appears reasonably considered to be that, of any two competing theories, the one with more scientifically-verifiable evidence is probably the more factual. Apparently then, the experimenter would compare the scientifically-verifiable evidence of evolution and company and the existence of God and the results would appear to indicate more evidence for evolution. The scientific inquirer might interpret the result of this experiment to suggest that evolution is more factual than the theory of the existence of God and of creation.
Disparity of Evidentiary Contexts
A problem appears to be that the Bible appears not to claim to offer currently scientifically-verifiable evidence of the existence of God. The Bible appears to suggest that the nature of God extends beyond that which is humanly verifiable. Further, the Bible appears to suggest that belief in, relationship with and interaction with God is, at least currently, intended to be based upon faith, perhaps, supported by whatever humanly-observable evidence that exists. This would appear to skew the results of the aforementioned test misrepresentingly.
Apparent potential opportunity appears to exist for evidence requestors to perceive potential for this presented perspective to constitute an fraudulent evasive maneuver to avoid fulfilling evidentiary requirements due to lack of merit of the proposed claim. However, this claim regarding appropriate lack of typical evidence appears to have some logical and reasonable basis.
An apparently reasonable illustration appears to be that, if Person A suggests to Person B that Person A’s dolphin is faster than Person B’s dog and Person B suggests that Person A bring the dolphin to a big field so that the dolphin and the dog can race, Person A would appear to be considered to appropriately suggest that dolphins don’t do well in fields and that the dolphin environment is water. If Person A suggests to Person B that Person B bring the dog to the local lake so that the animals can race since Person A has heard that dogs can swim in water, Person B appears to be reasonably considered to appropriately suggest that dogs don’t swim as fast as dogs can run. An apparently reasonable perspective appears to be that a feasible way of running an experiment would be to attempt to allow the animals to show their potential in their respective natural environments and to compare the results.
Similarity of Evidentiary Contexts
In my understanding, evolutionary theory consists of conclusions drawn using scientific logic and reason to “draw lines between the dots” of physical observations such as bones, energy readings, formulas, etc.
Also in my understanding, the same appears to have been done with regard to God as Creator of human existence. As I understand it, similarly scientific logic and reason is used to draw a different picture using the same and perhaps certain other (apparently) scientific observation “dots” that seem not included in the analysis that concludes that there is no God.
Science’s apparently reported tradition of thorough testing and repeatable results appears worthy of respect. However, the possibility of repeating the same tests and achieving the same results that yield less than the appropriate representation of reality appears to leave less room for discounting the existence of God. Added to this appears to be the tendency to, nearly unconsciously, ignore a valid possibility when there is a tendency toward another one.
Belief in God and creationism appear to be characterized by some as mere assumption of God as the answer to all unexplained observation. Upon further review, however, science appears to utilize the same approach regarding evolution and other applications. Evolutionary theory appears to suggest that certain unexplained similarities between apes and humankind were theorized to indicate that humankind came from apes. The term “interpolation” comes to mind.
Science appears as incapable of testing for ape-to-man evolution as some seem to suggest it is incapable of testing for God’s existence unless scientific inquiry can observe a singular bloodline of apes undergoing a series of transformations resulting in a human. Using faster-scale, observable transformation in other entities to validate a similar ape-to-man transformation appears to represent no less a leap of scientific faith as believing in the existence of God whose humanly-perceived attributes and capabilities appear to exist in other apparently, scientifically-recognized entities.
Human Development Via Creation and Via Descendance from Apes
I humbly and respectfully submit the apparently reasonable theory that the apparently Biblically-suggested creation of humanity by God appears somewhat more plausible than the apparent suggestion that humanity descended from apes.
One apparently reasonable reason for this perspective appears to be that the apparently Biblical suggestion that God created humanity includes the apparent Biblical suggestion of the relationship between God and humanity and of the damage done to that relationship. This apparently suggested damage appears to provide the most comprehensive and apparently plausible explanation I have encountered for the apparently reported adverse history and condition of the human experience.
A second apparently reasonable reason for the apparent personal perception and suggestion that the apparently Biblically-suggested creation of humanity by God appears somewhat more plausible than the apparent suggestion that humanity descended from apes is that multiple apparently plausible alternative explanations appear to exist for apparently suggested similarity among living entities, including similarities in bone structure and DNA.
One apparently plausible alternative for said similarity appears to be breeding between less similar entities. Sexual relations between humanity and animals appears to be reported to exist to some extent today. Such sexual relations in ancient history that might have produced offspring with the traits of both sexual partners appears to be reasonably considered to be less than implausible.
A second apparently plausible alternative for said similarity appears to recognize the possibility that God, in the apparently Biblically-suggested account of creation, might have used certain design patterns to create similar, yet distinct entities. The Bible appears to suggest that animals were created prior to humanity. The suggestion that God might have selected the most useful body design yet implemented, and subsequently implemented an enhanced version in the creation of humanity.
Reliance of Science On Faith
by BlogSpotThinker
September 4, 2011
The term “faith” appears to have two meanings. One meaning might be referred to as “scientific faith” and is described below. The other appears to refer to “belief in God”.
Scientific Faith
Science seems to suggest that human perception is fallible and, as a result, unreliable. Conclusions based on human perception are, therefore, possibly accurate, but unreliable. That unreliability appears to cause any use of those conclusions to be considered an act of "scientific faith" - a decision to accept a conclusion as accurate in the absence of irrefutable evidence.
September 4, 2011
The term “faith” appears to have two meanings. One meaning might be referred to as “scientific faith” and is described below. The other appears to refer to “belief in God”.
Scientific Faith
Science seems to suggest that human perception is fallible and, as a result, unreliable. Conclusions based on human perception are, therefore, possibly accurate, but unreliable. That unreliability appears to cause any use of those conclusions to be considered an act of "scientific faith" - a decision to accept a conclusion as accurate in the absence of irrefutable evidence.
Logic and Reason Supporting A Creator God
by BlogSpotThinker
Posted September 06, 2011
(Revised October 3, 2011)
Overview
This article appears to be primarily intended to (a) address the suggestion that science considers belief in God to be irrational and to (b) suggest that those suggestions appear to misrepresent science’s position on this subject. The article shares a few examples of logic and reason that appears to point to God and a few challenges to apparent assertions that appear to suggest that the attributes of God are fictional.
Logic science appears to suggest that the basis for assertion that a premise is false is the extent to which that premise can be irrefutably proven to be false. Otherwise, logic science appears to suggest that the only assertion that logic science appears to consider to be valid regarding the premise is that available information regarding the premise appears insufficient to form the basis for offering an opinion about the premise that is intended to be considered to be irrefutable.
Consequently, if logic science does not assert basis for irrefutably declaring the non-existence of God, then claims that science does make that assertion appear to be false.
Consequently, without claiming authoritative knowledge, the apparently reasonable theory is herein presented that scientific logic and reason appear to suggest the existence of a Creator-God to be a rational concept.
Support Overview
I humbly and respectfully submit the apparently reasonable perspective that the Bible appears to offer the most comprehensive set of explanations that I have encountered regarding the human experience. This apparently strong, Biblical set of explanations appears to include answers to questions for which science appears not yet to have offered an alternative. Consequently, ascribing more influence to the Bible’s apparent claims than to claims of a pink unicorn, magic space pizza or wizard, as appear to have been suggested, appears to be reasonably considered to be less-than-irrational.
The Bible appears to suggest that human ability to discern and identify God has been damaged by the apparently Biblically-suggested rejection of God’s sovereign leadership. This apparently Biblically-suggested human limitation appears to include the capabilities of scientific inquiry. Consequently, no irrefutable physical evidence or scientifically-verifiable evidence appears to be intended to be suggested for the existence of God. Rather, the support apparently intended to be submitted is logic and reason regarding apparently reported, scientifically-accepted phenomena, as other tenets of science appear to be, that appears to suggest the existence of God. That logic and reason appears to be intended to be represented by BlogSpot Thinker.
Self Certification
God appears to be reasonably suggested to be a self-authorizing entity. This suggestion appears to be reasonable because of the apparent Biblical suggestion that God is the sovereign entity of all reality. As sovereign, existence of a higher-level, certifying authority appears to be reasonably considered to be precluded. Any support of the claim of authority would, therefore, appear to be reasonably considered to be submitted by lower-level entities. Due to God’s apparently Biblically-suggested role as creator of all reality, the extent of the authority upon which created entities would appear to reasonably be considered to have basis to verify God’s claim of authority appears, logically, to be God’s claim of authority.
Suggested Attributes of God Apparently Observable in Other Entities
This logic and reason suggests that attributes associated with God appear scientifically considered to exist in other entities, perhaps even in combination. If so, it appears reasonable to suggest that these attributes might also exist in God. For example, God appears to be considered to be infinite, and infinite existence appears to be a scientifically accepted concept. Likewise, God appears considered to be omniscient and science appears willing to accept that, even among humans, one human might have more knowledge than all the others, although science might not be able to feasibly determine which one it is. Similarly, God’s proposed infinite existence appears scientifically acceptable as reason to rationally suspect God’s knowledge as being beyond that of humans, and perhaps, beyond that of all that exists within infinity. These appear not to be very far leaps of “scientific faith”. Consequently, it appears less than irrational to suggest that an entity might have all those attributes and maybe more.
Voids in the Human Experience
Apparent voids in the structure of human experience appear to suggest the existence of information or functionality superlative to what appears to be humanly-held. The Bible appears to attribute this information and functionality to God.
For example, differing human moral values appear to suggest that a values standard probably exists via which the relative “rightness” of those human moral values might be determined. This appears to suggest that an entity - God - is knowledgeable enough to know that standard.
History appears to report a human trend toward pomp and circumstance and the establishment of leadership figures. This trend appears to suggest a void in the human experience in the shape of an entity with such superior glory and power. The Bible appears to suggest that entity to be God.
The Apparently Suggested Unobservability of God Observed in Other Entities
Scientific review of the phenomena of life and thought appear to suggest that they are phenomena beyond the scope of matter with a nature different than any other known to humanity. Nonetheless, these phenomena appear to be accepted by science as existent and limitedly predictable, although their source appears to not be observed using current scientific inquiry, apparently because of limited, if at all existent, human understanding of their natures. God appears rationally suggested to have a nature that might be similarly unknown to man and, like life and thought, therefore, not humanly testable beyond observation of God’s suggested, verifiable, physical effect.
This and other logic that appears to logically point toward the existence of certain components of reality that appear to match certain suggested attributes of God, appear to suggest that the theoried existence of God is less than unreasonable.
Posted September 06, 2011
(Revised October 3, 2011)
Overview
This article appears to be primarily intended to (a) address the suggestion that science considers belief in God to be irrational and to (b) suggest that those suggestions appear to misrepresent science’s position on this subject. The article shares a few examples of logic and reason that appears to point to God and a few challenges to apparent assertions that appear to suggest that the attributes of God are fictional.
Logic science appears to suggest that the basis for assertion that a premise is false is the extent to which that premise can be irrefutably proven to be false. Otherwise, logic science appears to suggest that the only assertion that logic science appears to consider to be valid regarding the premise is that available information regarding the premise appears insufficient to form the basis for offering an opinion about the premise that is intended to be considered to be irrefutable.
Consequently, if logic science does not assert basis for irrefutably declaring the non-existence of God, then claims that science does make that assertion appear to be false.
Consequently, without claiming authoritative knowledge, the apparently reasonable theory is herein presented that scientific logic and reason appear to suggest the existence of a Creator-God to be a rational concept.
Support Overview
I humbly and respectfully submit the apparently reasonable perspective that the Bible appears to offer the most comprehensive set of explanations that I have encountered regarding the human experience. This apparently strong, Biblical set of explanations appears to include answers to questions for which science appears not yet to have offered an alternative. Consequently, ascribing more influence to the Bible’s apparent claims than to claims of a pink unicorn, magic space pizza or wizard, as appear to have been suggested, appears to be reasonably considered to be less-than-irrational.
The Bible appears to suggest that human ability to discern and identify God has been damaged by the apparently Biblically-suggested rejection of God’s sovereign leadership. This apparently Biblically-suggested human limitation appears to include the capabilities of scientific inquiry. Consequently, no irrefutable physical evidence or scientifically-verifiable evidence appears to be intended to be suggested for the existence of God. Rather, the support apparently intended to be submitted is logic and reason regarding apparently reported, scientifically-accepted phenomena, as other tenets of science appear to be, that appears to suggest the existence of God. That logic and reason appears to be intended to be represented by BlogSpot Thinker.
Self Certification
God appears to be reasonably suggested to be a self-authorizing entity. This suggestion appears to be reasonable because of the apparent Biblical suggestion that God is the sovereign entity of all reality. As sovereign, existence of a higher-level, certifying authority appears to be reasonably considered to be precluded. Any support of the claim of authority would, therefore, appear to be reasonably considered to be submitted by lower-level entities. Due to God’s apparently Biblically-suggested role as creator of all reality, the extent of the authority upon which created entities would appear to reasonably be considered to have basis to verify God’s claim of authority appears, logically, to be God’s claim of authority.
Suggested Attributes of God Apparently Observable in Other Entities
This logic and reason suggests that attributes associated with God appear scientifically considered to exist in other entities, perhaps even in combination. If so, it appears reasonable to suggest that these attributes might also exist in God. For example, God appears to be considered to be infinite, and infinite existence appears to be a scientifically accepted concept. Likewise, God appears considered to be omniscient and science appears willing to accept that, even among humans, one human might have more knowledge than all the others, although science might not be able to feasibly determine which one it is. Similarly, God’s proposed infinite existence appears scientifically acceptable as reason to rationally suspect God’s knowledge as being beyond that of humans, and perhaps, beyond that of all that exists within infinity. These appear not to be very far leaps of “scientific faith”. Consequently, it appears less than irrational to suggest that an entity might have all those attributes and maybe more.
Voids in the Human Experience
Apparent voids in the structure of human experience appear to suggest the existence of information or functionality superlative to what appears to be humanly-held. The Bible appears to attribute this information and functionality to God.
For example, differing human moral values appear to suggest that a values standard probably exists via which the relative “rightness” of those human moral values might be determined. This appears to suggest that an entity - God - is knowledgeable enough to know that standard.
History appears to report a human trend toward pomp and circumstance and the establishment of leadership figures. This trend appears to suggest a void in the human experience in the shape of an entity with such superior glory and power. The Bible appears to suggest that entity to be God.
The Apparently Suggested Unobservability of God Observed in Other Entities
Scientific review of the phenomena of life and thought appear to suggest that they are phenomena beyond the scope of matter with a nature different than any other known to humanity. Nonetheless, these phenomena appear to be accepted by science as existent and limitedly predictable, although their source appears to not be observed using current scientific inquiry, apparently because of limited, if at all existent, human understanding of their natures. God appears rationally suggested to have a nature that might be similarly unknown to man and, like life and thought, therefore, not humanly testable beyond observation of God’s suggested, verifiable, physical effect.
This and other logic that appears to logically point toward the existence of certain components of reality that appear to match certain suggested attributes of God, appear to suggest that the theoried existence of God is less than unreasonable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)