Can you prove that God exists?

That's incorrect.

While LSD and it's ilk are ILLUSONARY drugs, mescaline and psylocybin are true hallucenatory drugs at the proper level of ingestion.

Just like opiates, although the quality of the opiate experience has more of an "everyday" feel to it.

 

DM,

What, pray tell, does the bible code have to do with the price of tea in China?

Hebrews 7:28

"For the law appoints as high priest men who have weakness, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has been perfected forever."

 

Gekco, this thread is titled "Can you prove that God exists?". The Bible code is alleged proof of his existence.

Whether the code is real or not at this point has not been universally agreed. It's still pretty controversial. But if it was real — how could it be explained other than because God is real?

 

I think its easy to explain the 'bible code' without any need for God. There are only so many letters in any alphabet and if you randomly pick and choose step-valued ciphers you will eventually find 'hidden' messages in any text.

The only reason that they can claim that the bible's 'hidden messages' are so complex that the authors couldn't have had the math to do it is that the 'code breakers' had to go SO FAR out on a limb with mathmatics to find anything meaningful.

Look hard enough at anything, trying to beleive, and you will find the meaning you are looking for.

 

POPthree, your information on the Bible Code seems a little outdated.

The Bible Code was originally debunked on the basis that you could find similar messages in any large text, such as War and Peace or Moby Dick. This is quite true, but there are large clusters of codes now being found in The Bible that are statistically highly improbable, which make the Bible Code seem more and more convincing every day.

Perhaps one of the most significant Bible Code messages discovered to date reads:

"Gushing from above, Yeshua was my mighty name, and the clouds rejoiced"

The chance of this 22-letter message appearing anywhere in the Old Testament is 1 in 287,000,000,000,000,000,000 — which is incredible enough. It also has a very low skip distance of 20 letters, which makes it even more significant. But what makes this really interesting is the fact that this message begins on the first letter of the second word of Isaiah 53.

Isaiah 53 contains the strongest and most significant finding to date — a massive collection of messages all focussed around Isaiah 53, known as the Isaiah 53 cluster.

In case you didn't know, Isaiah 53 is a very significant chapter of the Old Testament as it seems to quite plainly and explicitly foretell the coming of the messiah, even though it was written some 600 years before Christ. Nobody who wrote it could have known about the circumstances surrounding Christ — let alone that his name would be Yeshua!

Whether or not the Bible Code is real is all a matter of statistical significance, which is a highly complicated and controversial matter, and the arguments are still going back and forth as we speak. But when you compare the findings in The Bible with findings in other 'control' books, The Bible seems to have a lot more to say, and seems to throw up a lot more interesting coincidences. The above example has me convinced, personally.

If you're interested, here's a good site about the Bible Code:
http://www.biblecodedigest.com/page.php/9

 

I'm not affirming or discrediting the bible code theory, but in reading these posts, a few things have occurred to me that are worth considering.


The first one is the fact that the books of the bible were originally written in Hebrew, and I don't know specifically which ones, maybe all of the OT, I really don't know. This in itself is not a obscure bit of info, but a complication arises with the fact that the original Hebrew text was written without vowels, and had no spaces between words. There is a lot of fine detail in meaning which has been inaccurately translated over the many generations of bible versions, all stemming from that one fact.
That's bound to throw a curve in the code breaking formula.

Another obvious, or maybe less obvious, complication is the fact that the english translations were not one of the first ones, there were Greek, Coptic, Latin, etc... before the first english version. That's definitely another complicating factor.

I don't know any details about what versions have been examined for code, so understand I'm not attacking anyone's belief, just wanted to sow some healthy skepticism seeds.

I do feel the bible is definitely something to be approached with a code breaker mentality, but I don't think the proper one has been used very often. The bible's code, IMO, is in symbolism, much of it astrological, and figurative as well as allegorical. And I don't mean just Jesus's words and parables. There is a unique code in those, as well, and it seems just to be his own personal way of explaining things in a way understandable to us. It is very consistent, though, and logical. Time periods in the bible are in a kind of code, one that is of a proportionate nature, with a lot of 7's going on. There is a big numerical aspect, as well, but not a formulary one, but rather of a numerology slant.

The message and basic instruction in the bible in regard to the antichrist, beast, and the end times, etc. is not found just in Revelations. That theme, and the theme of sacrifice/savior is replayed countless times, over and over. It's something very hard to detect if one "studies" the bible in the manner modern religion prescribes, i.e. reading tiny portions, 1 or 2 verses at a time, and dissecting each little phrase to death in the hopes of discerning the hidden truths within. That is doomed to failure because it misleads and also leaves a lot open which false prophets can utilize with ease. The bible is more of a "big picture", and that is where the secrets are found, by looking at in from a wider perspective. Narrow may be the road to salvation, but not to understanding.

It would be a terrible waste to miss the message in the bible that is known to be encoded in the search for a code which might be there, and is based on a more modern-day method of encoding, based on a language that was not even in existence when it was written.

 

It was all in Hebrew.

This isn't a complication. Hebrew has no vowels, and neither The Old Testament or the messages found via the Bible Code have any spaces.

Yes, but this doesn't affect the messages found via the Bible Code. If you find the message "GODEXISTS" it's quite obvious that if this was a message hidden in The Bible by God for us to find then there should be a space in there. Spaces are only a problem if you found a message where the spacing could affect the meaning, which I don't think has happened yet.

The Bible Code does not use a translation, only the original Hebrew texts. These texts themselves are not necessarily the "original" texts, however, if we are to hypothesise that God hid these messages for us to uncover with computers, then the texts that we are using must be the "correct" ones that God intended us to use. Otherwise, there would be no point him putting codes in there in the first place.

Either the Bible Code is real, and the text we use are 100% correct, or the codes don't exist at all. There can be no inbetween.

 

More unsubstantiated words and opinions.

The bible code means nothing more than any other un-verifiable words.

It's still flat statements with nothing to back it up.

 

I'm with geckopelli.

The bible code is of a modern-day mindset, and I just can't see it as being something consistent enough to put stock in, especially by forgoing the bible's less covert other code.

What other statements have been found? And where?

 

Whether the messages in the Bible Code are "true", "false", or even meaningful is besides the point. The point is that if codes are found in The Bible that represent a statistical "impossibility", or the codes actually do predict the future then it seems a reasonable assumption that God (or at least someone vastly intelligent pretending to be God) was the indirect author of The Bible.

The Bible Code is not based on "statements" or opinions, it's purely science. The Code's validity rests solely on the conclusions of statistical experiments, which do not need "backing up" since they are mathematical experiments which can be repeated by anyone at any time. The only people who can declare The Bible code to be real or false are expert statisticians, and at present there is no universally accepted consensus.

There was a lot of hype and sensationalism surrounding the Code when it was first revealled. Many of the original claims were subsequentially proven false because the mathematician behind the software was frankly a lousy statistician and his experiments were painfully flawed. But new Bible Code findings continue to be made which are based on good statistics, and are not so easy to refute. At this stage, the experts still can't agree, and there is still no clear and obvious explanation of how these seemingly "impossible coincidences" could be.

All other aspects of my faith are personal opinions, but The Bible code is something I (and everyone) should leave to the experts, because it is science, and I am not an expert statistician. This is frustrating, but for now I am happy to see the Bible Codes as an interesting curiosity. However, as I am a believer in God, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Codes turned out to be real.

 

"Whether the messages in the Bible Code are "true", "false", or even meaningful is besides the point. The point is that if codes are found in The Bible that represent a statistical "impossibility"... then it seems a reasonable assumption that God (or at least someone vastly intelligent pretending to be God) was the indirect author of The Bible."

A statistical improbability- not impossibility.
Unfourtunetly, this argument is of no value. The same can be said of so improbable an event as evolution.
Does evolution prove intelligent design?
And if we accept that it does, than what of the bible? Is it the same god?

"or the codes actually do predict the future..." this is so open to debate that it is beyond resolution.


"The Bible Code is not based on "statements" or opinions, it's purely science. The Code's validity rests solely on the conclusions of statistical experiments, which do not need "backing up" since they are mathematical experiments which can be repeated by anyone at any time. The only people who can declare The Bible code to be real or false are expert statisticians, and at present there is no universally accepted consensus."

Again, "true or false"- null sounds. Statistics are a study in probability.

"There was a lot of hype and sensationalism surrounding the Code when it was first revealled. Many of the original claims were subsequentially proven false because the mathematician behind the software was frankly a lousy statistician and his experiments were painfully flawed. But new Bible Code findings continue to be made which are based on good statistics, and are not so easy to refute. At this stage, the experts still can't agree, and there is still no clear and obvious explanation of how these seemingly "impossible coincidences" could be."

Your "experts" are bible scholars and statisticians, believers all- not scientist. If they knew anything, they would speak of low probabilities, not impossibilies.

"All other aspects of my faith are personal opinions, but The Bible code is something I (and everyone) should leave to the experts, because it is science, and I am not an expert statistician. This is frustrating, but for now I am happy to see the Bible Codes as an interesting curiosity. However, as I am a believer in God, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Codes turned out to be real"

It is not science. it's bible study.

 

Just an interesting link I found on bible code and clustering.

http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/moby.html

The information given on http://www.biblecodedigest.com is simply unreliable at best. How did they figure that probability? I need to get some ciphering software and I can have some real fun. Anyone with a computer a some software can probably make thousands of 'codes' from any newspaper.

 

I put "impossibility" in inverted commas. If something is highly improbable beyond all reasonable doubt then it is only sensible to draw a conclusion based upon it. For example, if you toss a coin a billion times and every time it comes up heads — it would be sensible to conclude that the coin is biased. That is what science is based on. All the laws and principles in modern science could be wrong. But we work on the assumption that they are not.

That's totally different. There is no basis upon which we can determine how probable evolution is. If we assumed the universe was infinite and had no beginning or end, the probability of evolution occurring eventually would be 1. On the other hand, if the universe was finite, and we assumed that everything happened for a reason, then the probability of evolution would be 0 since there would be nothing to cause the universe, and nothing would exist.

Okay, I'm being a little silly, here, but the point I'm trying to make is that you would have difficulty putting a probability on something happening within the universe at some point in time. A mathematical equation, on the other hand, gives a very clear and precise result (the same result every time) which cannot be disputed.

I don't think evolution itself proves intelligent design. If you think our existence is evidence of a creator then there are much more fundamental factors in our existence, such as gravity, time, space, meteors etc. I don't think evolution is any more significant than anything else that contributes to our existence.

Again, it's all about reasonable doubt. If the codes can be seen to successfully predict future events with great accuracy — an event that can not be biased by its foreknowledge by humans — then it would be reasonable to assume that the codes can predict the future.

You clearly know little to nothing of the Bible Code. The Bible Code is legitimate science and is not studied exclusively by religious groups. Study of the Bible Code is not a study of history or religion or society, and it is not based on trial and error or proving/disproving theories. The Bible Code is science in its purest form: mathematics. The conclusions of Bible Code experiments may be up for interpretation, but the results are not.

Bible study is about reading the text of The Bible. The Bible Code is, essentially, about completely ignoring the text of The Bible and looking for hidden codes in order to verify the book's authenticity as the word of God.

Just out of interest, do you consider SETI (the search for extra terrestrial life) science, or do you consider it the study of random cosmic radiation? Or perhaps an indulgence for science-fiction nerds?

Gecko, I'd like to add that I find it quite interesting that you are very obstinate and persistent in your denial of anything remotely connected with religion being scientific. Almost to the point of saying "1 christian + 1 christian does not equal 2 christians because it's not science, it's religious study". I may be wrong, but it seems to me that you simply don't think people who believe in God are rational and logical, and you somehow feel offended if they want to use science because you don't think they're qualified to use it. You also seem quite closed-minded about the possibility of it being possible to "prove" God's existence. That's how it seems to me, at least.

 

Is it just me, or do those 3 statements seem to contradict one another, as well as your claims?
A consistent mathematical result does not prove intelligent design, either. And if we are working on the assumption that science laws and principles are correct, could that not also be applied to mathematics?

The more people trying to find hidden messages in the bible, the more hidden messages will be found. That is statistics, too, and I'm no mathematician. The probability in that alone makes it questionable. The very statements you make to support your claim can also be used in the same manner to dispute it!

The bottom line is this: hidden codes in no way, whatsoever, prove anything except a preoccupation with things of man, which is a no-no.

Do you hear what you're saying? Do you have a lightning rod nearby for your own protection? How can you think it is okay to ignore the text of the bible, when looking for authenticity? If you require authenticity, then your faith is not as strong as you might think. If you believe the bible is real, and sent by God, then you believe in God because your heart tells you so. Heart=love=God. To have to look for proof means you're still proving to yourself that you need faith and that it is profitable to have faith.

The results are nothing but facts and figures, made from a science devised by man. Quantum physics is a science I can believe has divine correlation or origination. Statistics is something man has devised as a tool for rationalization in order to explain things which he lacks the ability to understand, and as a way to alleviate the fear of powerlessness.

 

There is no contradiction as far as I can see. When I said that scientific principles could be wrong, I was talking about theoretic principles such as gravity, particles, etc. Mathematical calculations cannot be wrong, since they do not

You are obviously not a statistician; nor am I. I don't think either of us is in a position to question the experts. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying you're talking about something you don't know much about. Proving the Bible Code is real is not about how many messages are found, it's about making findings that defy probabilities.

For example, if I search for the word "Yeshua" and it occurs 1,000,000 times, then I scramble the text and perform the experiment 1,000,000,000 times and none of the scrambled experiments give anywhere near as many results as the original text, then this would seem to be a statistical improbability.

I have not mentioned my own involvement with The Bible Code in this discussion. I didn't invent it, and I don't have a degree in statistics, hence I don't study it.

Anyway, I don't see how it could be in any way objectionable (to God or anyone) to try and verify the authenticity of The Bible. If you're religious, and you have no desire to verify whether the Bible was written by God, you'd have to be an extremely narrow minded and ignorant person.

My faith is about 99%. Despite having a religious vision 3 years ago, I don't think my faith would ever rise above 99% or I would have lost my objectivity and I would consider myself a fool. I am quite happy questioning the authenticity of The Bible whilst knowing that I believe in God. It's already pretty obvious that a lot of the Bible is not true, and was fabricated by early Christians, which leaves serious doubt as to whether the rest of it was written by God. This is one reason I would be very interested in validating the authenticity of The Bible as the word of God, because if it was shown to be his word then I could see it more as a direct message from God than an old book written by a bunch of people.

I do not believe in God because my heart tells me so. I believe in God for the same reason I believe in Jupiter. Facts. (Although there is obviously a lot more scientific evidence to prove Jupiter!)

To have to look for proof means you're still proving to yourself that you need faith and that it is profitable to have faith.[/quote]To look for proof is to seek the truth. If you think there's anything wrong with seeking the truth then you're an idiot. No offence.

I can only disagree. Statistics is a very sound and reliable method of determining things.

 

I can prove that God can't do everything. If God could do everything then he could kill himself right? But that means God would ahve to be able to die, but many people say that God is immortal or undieable or whatever. So either can can die or he can't do everything.

 

Studying a written text is literature, not science.

Dizzyman, all your arguments are the same: It' obvious to a believer because it's in the bible.

Although the bible may be subject to mathematical interpretation, so is mother goose.
Eithier way, it's just analyzing words written by people- and that's not Science.
It's bible study. Or is reading the bible text in greek also not bible study?

As long as you insist the bible is proof of it's own validity, you belong in the christian froum. Your arguments are preaching and of no value; we don't accept your premise blindly- what use repeating dogma not open to disscusion?

The existence of the bible does not provide ANY evidence for the existence of this undefined god. Might as well ignorantly follow the quran or book of mormon- they profess thier books to be true with more vigor than the christians.

 

G-d is not about Death, it is the realm of the world we live in that dictates death; so when we choose G-d, we no longer are in the hold of death, hence eternal life. It's not that G-d gives us eternal life, it's that when we let go of earthly attachment, we let go of death. It seems to me that life is natural, death is not. It's really not about being immortal, it's that in G-d's realm of being, there is no time, therefore eternity and immortality, and no point of origin. Without time there is no beginning and no end.

Besides all that, why would G-d want to kill himself anyway? He's everything, and if he killed himself, there would be nothing!

Another thing is, how can you "prove" that G-d can't kill himself? How can you prove anything about G-d, if he doesn't want you to?

 

Quantum physics is what the universe operates on, it seems. Humans can only get as far as theory in that area. Mathematics is considered absolute by humans. Anything we see as absolute from our limited understanding probably cannot be applied to that of the Greater Intelligence. We cannot even pretend to know the bottom line of anything, to do so is arrogant. Math seems absolute to me, for sure, but I realize that doesn’t mean squat within a bigger picture. And the bible is something related to the bigger picture.My dictionary says statistics is: the calculation, description, manipulation, and interpretation of the mathematical attributes of sets or populations too numerous or extensive for exhaustive measurements. The word manipulation in there says it all.

Most of the bible describes events and concepts that defy probability.

Then where is the basis for your vehement defense of such? Are you a blind believer in human staticians so that you can then be a blind believer in God? Again, do you realize what you are saying?

I have had an ongoing desire to verify the authenticity of the bible, but statistics doesn’t seem to be a viable way to do this.

99% is not 100%, what does that other 1% depend on? If it depends on ‘proving’ the authenticity of the bible, you might never get there. At some point faith has to take over in all areas.

I couldn’t agree more, but there’s no question it was written by a bunch of people. Unless G-d once held a pen in hand and applied it to paper. The question is was it divinely inspired? Statistics cannot answer that.

The only way to truly believe in G-d is from your heart. That is a divine source. Science is a man made field, subject to man’s fallibility.

No offense taken. I seek truth constantly. But not by the means of man. If you live by the truth, it will be revealed to you by the source of truth, G-d.

Of humanity, not divinity.

 

Mathmatics is absolute, but it is based entirely on things which are not absolute.
Example: 1 = 1. This is true.
1 lemon = 1 lemon. This is not true, because you have crossed the real world with mathmatics. Do the lemons wheigh the same? Do they have the same number of cells? Are they in the exact same state of ripeness? Do they have the same number of pores in there skins? Do they have the same number of atoms? Are the electrons spinning in the same directions simultaneously? Of course not. No 1 lemon in the whole univese equals another lemon. Sameness is an illusion which math DEPENDS on.

So mathmatics is a theoretical absolute which helps us approximate reality, but reality will always defy the absolutness of math.