Give me the Bible reference please.
I read enough to agree with @Christy, if you will recall. I do not need to reinvent the wheel.
Show me scripture that says we are supposed to communicate with any disembodied spirit. The only spirit we are to communicate with is God the Holy Spirit⌠via prayer.
1 Like
You must not know about the incident of Saul and the medium. Samuel was a good spirit, one of your âspirits of Godâ. Should he have been communicated with? No.
1 Like
What does doctrine mean except teaching? You quote doctrines, teachings, e.g., âJesus is not God.â
It has nothing to do with Justinian â you donât understand the order within the Trinity. The Trinity is a big part, maybe the only part, of why God created us â heâs happy in himself, as noted above.
And how do you get around Philippians 2:6?
That was another rhetorical question â I donât really need to know, because it wonât be legitimate.
A person can still confidently believe in something without having scientific proof.
1 Like
âŚand be either correct or mistaken. 
1 Like
true, no scientific evidence (much less proof) of either the existence or non-existence of god-like super-intelligent beings in our heavens
however, thousands of (mature, adult, rational) humans for thousands of years, worldwide, have consistently if sporadically claimed to receive meaningful intelligible cogent articulate audio-visual messages from god-like super-intelligent beings (somewhere) in our heavens
that constitutes direct firsthand witness testimony evidence, valid at law (by the reasonable man standard)
Ipso facto, at present, the preponderance of evidence weighs in favor of the existence of god-like super-intelligent beings (somewhere) in our heavens
Moreover, our best scientific hypotheses (Epicurus, Bruno, Fermi, Drake) have long âwarnedâ us that our heavens ought to be brimming with other intelligent beings (some of whom might well be super-intelligent)
So, the preponderance of evidence (witness testimony) & scientific hypothesizing all mutually agrees, corroborates, and points in the exact same direction â god-like super-intelligent beings (possibly, plausibly, perhaps probably) exist in our heavens
(and have reportedly already Contacted us repeatedly)
I am nowhere near so confident as that, for a couple or three reasons. As a Christian, I have reason to know why God created the universe (and it doesnât necessarily exclude other sentient physical beings, but there is no reason to include them, either), the adversary masquerades as an angel of light, and we live in A Small Big Universe, finely tuned.
1 Like
Yes, of course. And this is true even if someone is an Atheist with very little evidence to support atheism!
well, Iâm not telling anyone to be âconfidentâ in any active assertion, from our âpale blue dot spaceship earthâ, onto the entire rest of the fabric of space-time
based on blurry astronomy pictures of the day (all from earth, from one vantage point)
However, if you suddenly had to choose one way or the other, you would be better justified in prematurely presuming existence over non-existence
the âinitial unconfirmed reportsâ do suggest a clear, consistent, self-corroborating, perfectly possible / plausible / even probable scenario, which parsimoniously accounts for all of current knowns & best most educated guesses as to unknowns (god-like super-intelligent beings exist in the heavens as our most philo-sophical minds have long âwarnedâ in concert with the consistent claims of âContacteesâ to have received meaningful intelligible audio-visual messages therefrom)
the âinitial unconfirmed reportsâ of Contact-like events are not surprising and have a 2300-year-old (Epicurus) off-the-shelf explanation
Abraham + Epicurus = âearth has [advanced] neighborsâ
That sounds fairly confident to me, especially with all the emphases.
Confident in logic & reasoning
Religion = widespread reports of meaningful intelligible audio-visual âContactâ events from âgodlike beings in the heavensâ
Philosophy since Epicurus = Cosmological principle (âwhatâs here is thereâ) suggests Plurality of Worlds
Religion + Philosophy = (long ongoing) Contact from other-worldly beings
2 + 2 = 4
Tangentially, you are âconfidentâ in mathematics, yes? You are âsureâ that 2+2=4 in actual fact?
How many different kinds of confidence are there?
In base 10, aka the decimal system, or anything base 5 and above, yeah, pretty much.
Not âconfidentâ that there are in fact (advanced communicating) ETIâs out there â that would be a conclusion, only coming from the result of a lengthy protracted thorough due-cosmological-diligence investigation
Confident that the preponderance of (un-scientifically-corroborated witness testimony) evidence of Religion squares nicely with the ancient tried-and-so-far-always-true Cosmological Principle (âwhatâs here has so far always been thereâ) of Philosophy & Science, implying a simple parsimonious narrative explanation (advanced communications from advanced ETI neighbor(s))âŚ
and hence confident in a serious, straight-faced, non-dismissable, non-bah-humbug-able, but absolutely honestly sincerely genuinely maybe
as in, a worth looking into maybe
as in, âenough to warrant opening an earnest investigationâ maybe
confident that âpreliminary findingsâ warrant a closer look
I think thatâs close to âwhateverâ.
that doesnât qualify as âthinkingâ 
Epicurus, Bruno, Fermi & Drake are the current terrestrial standards (with the credentials)
âwhat they saidâ â Cosmological Principle & Plurality of Worlds are the actual best âintelligence estimatesâ on our cosmic neighborhood
I think this thread is poorly named.
Why there is no proof of God should be really re-stated to why
There is no Scientific Proof of God.
This is the problem with I.D. It gets confused between the ordinary ranges of âproofâ that men and women of faith find satisfactory for their devotions⌠and tries to make that the same as how to prove God, or his works, as an Independent Variable.
But think about it ⌠how would the laboratory table look?
1 Like
How about
There is no demonstrable proof of God?
Scripture says that we should not put God to the test⌠which is a very clever way for making God unprovable.
On the other hand I, like many, would claim that I do not need any (further?) proof of God.
For the believer no proof is needed, for the sceptic not proof is enough.
Richard
2 Likes