Detecting God

Disagree. A couple examples. If after "hearing from God" for the first time, I feel ten years younger, and 5 random people tell me I look ten years younger (not 5, not 2, not 7, 10) I think that is more than subjective. If I pray to God, and ask him to remove my fear of playing keyboards in front of people, because I am now playing for Him, then in an instance, 38 years of fear are gone, that's pretty objective. All I can say is after experiencing what I believe to be the Holy Spirit, immediately the whole NT took on a new meaning, and made much more sense to me. You know when people talk about an experience, and you sort of understand, but then when it actually happens to you, you understand much better? Of course, only God can change that point of view for you.

Don't circle jerk me please. It was there before we detected anything. Before we were able to detect anything. Long before we had the science or tools to detect it, back when Isaac Newton was creating his Newtonian telescope, it was there. Currently we look at stars and may not be able to detect wobbles from stars billions of light years away, but there could be planets there, we just can't detect it.It's simple logic, and I am correct in saying for the inth time that just because we cannot detect something, does not mean, it is not there.
(is there a better way of saying this since my English sucks?)

[qs"onifire"]Sorry dude but that's purely subjective. You heard from what you believe to be a god - that's subjective. You "feel" 5 years younger - that's subjective. And people who see you feel you're years younger - that is subjective too. [/qs]No, they said I look ten years younger. Before I told them anything. Sometimes objective evidence goes over the falls, and you don't have a chance to replicate it. That does not make it subjective.
The evidence is objective. Objective of what remains to be seen. There is plenty of objective evidence that supports lots of theory's, but nothing is ever proven. That does not diminish the value of the evidence. Keep collecting evidence, and you can come to a conclusion. Since we are so inferior with our detection methods, there is no CURRENT way to prove it. But what is the difference? Nothing is ever proven anyway. That is totally understandable. If I told you how a particular roller coaster felt, you would not fully understand until you subjectively felt it yourself. Is it not real just because it happened that way? No, what makes a difference is experiencing His love, and that changes you, so you can change others. Love wins.Edited by riVeRraT, : No reason given.

No, you twisted the whole thing around again. The logic was, if you can't detect something, it doesn't exist. That is illogical, and therefor not submittable.To answer you question (which I already did) about how do we detect God, I don't have a concrete answer for you. All I can tell is you is God said believe by faith. faith is subjective, and not part of the scientific method. We as humans do not live solely by the scientific method anyway, so don't be a hypocrite, and throw God out the window because He is subjective to us in our detection methods. I would expect the creator of the universe to be able to hide Himself from us anyway He chooses. I see people who think they can detect God as people who think they are above God, which would clearly not be the case if He existed. It's a total foolish notion.It is never up to us to prove something doesn't exist anyway.

We don't claim He exists out of the imaginations of our mind. He came and did miracles, and taught us of a way of living that makes a lot of sense. that was the beginning of our subjective detection. Other Gods of the past where used to control people, where as this God told us we are the ones in control, and that love is the way.can you detect love? What was taught to us in the bible, is not totally irrational.
Anything in life that we can think of is possible. Lack of being able to detect it, is not proof of it's none existence. That was the premise and foundation of the OT, and a bunch of shit.

Pretty sure I said that already earlier.

Yes, but the scientific method is limited to the current crop of toys we have, and our limited knowledge.

Now we are making a second circle. The basis to think it(God) exists is the bible, and all that was taught before it was even written. It's Jesus's words to us, that make you think, and get you started. It is Love.Almost everything in the bible is subjective, that is why faith is required. I believe there is only two places in the bible where God says how to test Him.One way is this:Malachi 3:10
Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this," says the LORD Almighty, "and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it.The second is this:
Romans 12:2
Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will ishis good, pleasing and perfect will.Gideon tested what he was hearing from God:
Judges 6
36 Gideon said to God, "If you will save Israel by my hand as you have promised- 37 look, I will place a wool fleece on the threshing floor. If there is dew only on the fleece and all the ground is dry, then I will know that you will save Israel by my hand, as you said." 38 And that is what happened. Gideon rose early the next day; he squeezed the fleece and wrung out the dewa bowlful of water.39 Then Gideon said to God, "Do not be angry with me. Let me make just one more request. Allow me one more test with the fleece. This time make the fleece dry and the ground covered with dew." 40 That night God did so. Only the fleece was dry; all the ground was covered with dew.But then there are several places in the bible that it tells us not to test God, but in these places it is part of a specific lesson, not a global statement. So the bible would appear to contradict itself, if you take things out of context.Gideons test was pretty objective, but not a double blind controlled experiment. The other tests, are subjective also. So no where in the bible are we told to objectively test God's existence. It is all subjective. We are to have faith. If God exists, and He is the creator of the universe we live in, I would think that He could hide Himself from all objective tests for Him. So not being able to "objectively" find God, does not make me lose faith. Sometimes personal subjectivity is all you need. Personal subjectivity is the basis for many things in your life.

That's what you see when you look at that? What that story tells me is that we can ask God questions like that. I have had a few similar experiences similar to that story. So I don't have to believe the story itself, but take comfort in knowing that stories like that can still happen today. If we can't detect anything objectively is what you meant?
You know, sometimes a thing can happen only once in your lifetime, and you know it happened, it cannot be objectively tested. Does that mean it didn't happen? But that does not objectively prove that she really loves you. This proves nothing either. She may actually still love you, just have problems. There are plenty of points, you just choose to ignore them, and explain them away to more rational(earthly) things.Don't make the mistake of thinking we have to "claim" God exists. We shouldn't do that imo. I have found the only way to show people that God exists, is to love them, the way He loves me. That is the only way.

Well I expressed some of them in this thread, and throughout this forum. Not trying to be a wise guy, but you could read the bible, and not take it out of context by going to a reputable bible study.

Then you are just as guilty as a televangelist who takes things of the bible our of context, and use the words for whatever he wants.
I showed you that because of all the subjective stuff in the bible, that was pretty objective. Don't get testy, I was just asking. Which proves one of my points. Love is subjective, but it exists. There is no fail safe "love detector". I've been trying to tell you for the last bunch of posts, that there is no objective test for God. That is not the point I am trying to make, so stop trying to refute it. Yep, and God would do the rest.

Yea, I used to get piano lessons. Not ever teacher was the one for me either. I switched until I found one that I like.
I mean, I am telling you that the bible is subjective, and your faith is subjective, so what else would you expect from going to different churches? People read the bible, and many times, every time they read it, they learn something new from reading the same verse over and over. That's the beauty of it. If God exists, and we are to be able to have a relationship with Him, and He created us to be individual then, it's ok that it means something different to all of us.Just like if we both went to a concert together. The concert exists, yet the feeling we each experienced is individual, and subjective from each other.The foundation of everything that Jesus tried to teach us, is to Love God, and love others like we love ourselves. The problem is when people use the bible, and religion to justify anything that deviates from that concept. Religion=man, God=Love.

I think you are mixing up objectivity with scientific consensus. Love in itself is subjective. You have no way of proving it from your own personal standards, because the person who "loves" you may have different standards. Yet, it all exists. [b][u]Objectively detected[/b][/u]. I didn't say He couldn't be subjectively detected.People glimpse UFO's, and think they see aliens. Do they exist or not? Just because we haven't objectively tested the existence of aliens, does not mean that they do not exist. Even if I don't believe in them.You subjectively detect your wife's love for you, and that is good enough for you.

Jesus's walk on the earth, and the miracles He performed are evidence.

I never said it was (objective)evidence of God. You and Huntard made that leap. It's just evidence. My point was that evidence existed, and you confirmed it.It is pretty funny how the most documented events of that time are some how today "not true". Guess everyone was writing about fairy tales, and thousands of people started believing, "just because"