Topic: God is Reality - page 7. (Read 10958 times)

Yes God is Real. We need to believe it that He will be coming soon.

Scientifically proof that God exists and there are many examples some are. A person is born he will definitely die one day and nothing can stop him from dying when his times come the other examples are the sun, moon, stars, oceans, mountains, lava's and others they are not made by humans.

There is 1,000's of them listed at Wikipedia.

So which god is the real one ?

Since you arbitrarily exclude or ignore scientific evidence, asking only for documented evidence on evolution (but indeed there is at least one case, I have to change what I wrote: dogs are indeed a different species from wolfs, they can interbreed, but their offspring are sterile), that show there are not only shared genes, but genetic evolution, since we have genetic samples from about 400,000 years ago from homo antecessor in Atapuerca, Spain, then lot of samples from Homo neanderthalensis and a few from homo denisovanian, all pointing to relations of ascendency and evolution between them (and then admixture with us), confirmed also on fossils, I'm confirming the end of my participation on this issue on evolution.

I might answer you on the soul issue later, but I have no hopes. If you reject clear cases like this one, there is little point in debating more subjective issues. I will always call religious someone who believe in god and the soul.

Great, so I suggest you read about these tests that have been conducted, starting with the AWARE study.

I am sure we will get to the evidence if we continue discussing, I have already pointed out the above test; before it was conducted, researchers French and Van Lommel concluded that
"If researchers could prove that clinically dead patients, with no electrical activity in their cortex, can be aware of events around them and form memories, this would suggest that the brain does not generate consciousness."
How can you say that these researchers are mistaken if there are no researchers who dispute their conclusion? Just like with evolution, I have to ask "WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?"
That the neurons survive is not indicative of anything. You need a functioning brain with blood flow and electrical firing to have hallucinations and perceptions. None of that is present during brain death. So how are the perceptions explained?

Not true, the neurons do not work (fire) when there is brain death. There is no sense of pain, no gag reflex, etc. Why in the world would there be perception and hallucination without even basic functions like those? It goes against everything that is understood about the brain.
Show me the evidence! Find even one neuroscientist who says that a dead brain can plausibly hallucinate.

I am not afraid of death or taxes, my friend; they are both illusory.

Neo-Darwinists say that there is species transformation without any examples. Skeptics say that there is brain activity (during brain death) that can generate perception without any examples. Why don't you guys say "I don't know"?

I am not religious; thanks for offering your opinions, but I was looking for evidence...

I will keep it brief, maybe just one point at a time...

I accept that there are shared genes, but there is no single documented instance of the transformation of one species into another, as stated by Thomas Hunt Morgan and others. Therefore, the evidence of common genes is not sufficient to conclude that all life has a common ancestor, since the evidence does not even allow for the shared ancestry between any two species. This conclusion has simply not been validated "in the field", and it is not warranted given the lack of an example; despite their best efforts, scientists are NOT close to simulating abiogenesis, despite what you may believe, and since there has not been a single example of species transformation in human history, science bats zero on this point.


Since the conclusion of common descent promoted by neo-Darwinism has not been validated with an example of the transformation of one species into another, I can only say that you would like us to think that any argument against neo-Darwinism is destroyed and "the rest are details" because then your conclusion cannot be falsified with inconvenient details such as missing evidence (i.e. knowledge gaps) and the like. There is an alternative. What about the arguments of Pye; what about his Intervention Theory? What about the details that simply don't add up, like with domesticated plants, as detailed in the Pye article linked below:

I don't think it is rational to conclude that we evolved from apes since there is not an unquestioned example of the transformation of one species into another (any species). There is only shared genes, but that could point to something else; see Pye's essay previously and this other essay from Pye:
http://www.whale.to/b/pye1.html

I disagree with both neo-Darwinism and creationism; I know that the Bible is tampered.
I think it is important to recognize that despite a ceaseless din of scientific protests to the contrary, there remains not a single unquestioned example of one species evolving even partially into another distinct and separate species. In science, it is perfectly reasonable to expect that an example be presented before accepting the conclusion. I am not expecting you to provide such an example, because it does not exist, so if you end your participation here then you end it having not provided the sort of evidence that I am seeking (in good faith, of course). I don't think it's fair that I have to restate the arguments of Pye for your digestion when you can read his articles and see the evidence for yourself; perhaps then you will see that I am not actually denying anything. Why not have a look at the Evidence for Creation by Outside Intervention? Please have an open mind and read these two articles thoroughly before replying to me; I appreciate it!

On the issue of the "soul", taking in account the recent research on the brain is absurd to say that the human brain, that is the most complex system we know on nature, doesn't create the conscience. The evidence we have point clearly in the positive sense (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#Neural_correlates). If that wasn't the case, we couldn't explain why your "soul" is affected by a trauma to the brain. Why when we pass out, our "soul" passes out too. Why someone "retarded" or with mental problems can in certain cases became better by a surgical intervention in the brain or medication that changes the chemical balance in the brain.


Actually, the idea that there is a soul that survives the body is recent. Ancient Hebrews didn't believe in afterlife. And the first Hebrews that defended it argued this occur under the form of the Resurrection of the dead in flesh and blood and not of any "soul". Even today, the confusion on all the Christian churches about what happen when we die is immense. Some say that our soul survives; others say it's our body that is resurrected in the judgement day, same mix both versions in an absurd way ((https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_eschatology#Resurrection_of_the_dead). They don't know nothing about it and their inventions, like all invented narratives, changed with time.  

Anyway, you are saying if we could test that conscience endures the dead of the brain we would have evidence of the survival of the soul. I can accept that. I would become a believer if the existence of the soul was the only explanation. But no tests suggest that. The neurons don't just die in seconds after the heart stops, they can survive for some minutes more, therefore their survival can explain those experiences you mentioned in the post you quoted. You are wrong when you wrote "The problem is that you need a functioning brain to have an hallucination. Blood flow, electrical activity". You can have neural activity without oxygen or blood flow for some minutes while the neurons die. Until they are dead, they keep on working. Maybe they will work badly, but since they are still alive, why couldn't they create memories?

Therefore, how dare you believe that your "soul" will survive the death of your brain based on what we know? Is mixing your aspirations and your fear from death (read my https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12953274) with reality. Any prudent person would say, I don't know, I'm not shore... but believers just say, I know I have an immortal soul...
Yeah, shore. All evidence points to this: we were nothing for an eternity and we will be nothing again forever and ever. Between these two eternities of nothingness you have a life to live, in just a blink of an eye in cosmic terms. Enjoy it, respecting others. Don't bind yourself to religious rules invented by others arbitrarily during the bronze age that have no ethical ground.

For someone who denies something that is backed with so much evidence, on first impression, you seem open minded. But that has to be a pure superficial attitude. In the end, it's all about authority of the Bible. You wouldn't risk your reputation by defending what you are defending if you had not a religious agenda. You are afraid that recognizing the Bible is wrong will put in question all the rest it states.

1) There is no contradiction. I dismissed the argument that because we still ignore the exact way how life was created we have to accept that it was God. We are very close to it. I can accept the argument on the Big Bang and specially on the creation of the multiverse where the Big Bang was formed. We still have no clue on the beginning of all. But your "it was God" also says nothing about what created God.

But as I wrote, the creation of life has nothing to do with evolution. Is no argument against it. God could be the creator of the first life and left then things to evolution. Insisting on it make you an illogical person and there is no use to keep arguing with you if this is truth.

[It isn't important to the issue of evolution your point on understanding God. But I still say it's absurd to wait 13800 million of years for something believers say God could created in 6 days. The universe wasn't created in 6 days, the Bible is wrong. But God is too important to you, for you to give up him. I only expect you to accept evolution, because denying make you look ridiculous and affects your credibility defending God].

2) The differences between plants and animals are not that big. They are both based on the same system of DNA. We know they have common ancestors, the first cells.

3) Human history? Do you want a complete change of a species in 5000 years to accept evolution? That is absurd. Anyway, the dog is different enough from the wolf to serve as an example. Technically, they are still the same species, since they can still interbreed. But dogs have several genetic differences from wolfs. Evolution made that. The principle is backed during human history from dogs: species evolve, they were not created as they are. Once you accept this principle, the rest of your arguments are irrelevant.

You can't ignore all the evidence that says chimps and humans have a common ancestor. We have evidence from fossils and genes. Modern humans have genes from neanderthals and denisovans (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/12/131204-human-fossil-dna-spain-denisovan-cave/). You can't deny that they existed and were very different from us. Moreover, genetic evidence and fossils confirm that they evolved during about 2 million years since the Homo Erectus. They interbred with us and made us different. We don't have gene evidence about older ascendents, like the Homo Habilis, but we have many fossils that confirm we are related, because show a slow change toward us. Anyway, genes show we have a common ancestor with apes and that is enough to confirm evolution.

If you don't accept this evidence that we have a common ancestor with apes, I have nothing more to write about this with you, because you couldn't be arguing in good faith.

But if you accept this, this destroy any argument against evolution. The rest are details. If one accepts that we evolve from something that was similar to a ape, of course, accepting that vegetables and animals have a common ancestor is almost trivial.

I end here my participation about evolution, because if I couldn't convince you, clearly, I won't be able to do it, because you really don't want to accept the evidence and will deny what is evident for anyone with even a not very open mind but in good faith. At least you have to recognize there are strong evidence in favor of evolution and your position is to say the least very risky to your reputation.


But I have nothing against you, you look like a fine person. You are just in a denying state on this issue.

If researchers could prove that clinically dead patients, with no electrical activity in their cortex, can be aware of events around them and form memories, this would suggest that the brain does not generate consciousness.

In the AWARE study, consciousness and awareness appeared to occur during a three-minute period when there was no heartbeat. This is paradoxical, since the brain typically ceases functioning within 20-30 seconds of the heart stopping and doesn’t resume again until the heart has been restarted.

Read more:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12899128

It's too bad you did not truly engage with the article; now I will have to quote from it in reply to you. Fortunately, this makes my task easier, but I would prefer an engaging conversation.
Read the source: http://www.lloydpye.com/essay_interventiontheory.htm

Actually, I see that you have just contradicted yourself. If you don't use "God" to explain the common ancestor, then what explanation is left? After a century of heavily subsidized efforts to create even the most basic rudiments of life in a laboratory, scientists are still batting zero. As Dawson noted, “here also we are required to admit as a general principle what is contrary to experience.”

Funny. You think you know what God is thinking? I would say that God is indifferent to your human opinion and is not concerned with your intellectual imagination. By the way, God's Law is written on your heart, so you are never without guidance. Please do not bring the Bible into this; I don't believe in authority other than self.

2) Plant and Animal life forms are necessarily the converse of each other, the one deoxidizes and accumulates, the other oxidizes and expends. If life evolved as Darwinists claim, it would have to bridge the gaping chasm between plant and animal life at least once, and more likely countless times. Lacking one undeniable example of this bridging, science again bats zero. The animal never in its simplest forms assumes the functions of the plant.

3) “It is this gap [between any species of animal or plant and any other species], and this only, which Darwin undertook to fill up by his great work on the origin of species; but, notwithstanding the immense amount of material thus expended, it yawns as wide as ever, since it must be admitted that no case has been ascertained in which individuals of one species have transgressed the limits between it and other species.” Here, too, despite a ceaseless din of scientific protests to the contrary, there remains not a single unquestioned example of one species evolving even partially into another distinct and separate species.

Thomas H. Morgan, who won a Nobel Prize for work on heredity, wrote: “Within the period of human history, we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one species into another if we apply the most rigid and extreme tests used to distinguish wild species.”

And this statement by Morgan is by no means an exceptional disclosure.

Let me tell you how we should see God as reality...

Most of the people in the world(like 90%) believe in God, the other 5% are don't sure and the rest 5% are atheist. But, did the believers really believe in Him, or what are the others 10% who are not sure or maybe didn't believe?

I was grown up in a orthodox family and I never think to check in what I am really believe or did I really believe until last year... During my 1 year research I realize that I am believer, but the way I believe and how should I really believe was so wrong. After I research the Yoga and The Bible, I open the door of the spiritual world and all I can say you people... Boys and girls, don't believe what the media or the people who are leading the temples tell you how you should believe, instead, go research the Yoga and the Bible and you will see that everything they told you was sow wrong.

Yes! i believe God is a reality. Whole of the system that is working flawlessly in this universe is quite an enough evidence for getting an assurance that there is someone controlling everything.

        I'm going to write further on this issue only because I'm in the mood and you don't look like the usual religious fanatic. Maybe some other people with similar ideas will also change his mind.
        But if your religion consider your duty to "spread the word of the lord", and convert the atheists, you risk burn in hell for how bad you are at spreading his word, by defending non sense things. I know in America there are some fundamentalists that still believe everything in the bible is truth. But if you said in Europe that there was no evolution, you can rest assure the conversation will end and people will look to you with a strange look. It's like saying that the earth is standing and it's the Sun that moves around us, like the church forced Galileo to state. Even the catholic church now accepts evolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution).

         1) Specialists don't know the exact way how matter was converted in life, but we are getting to it. We already know how to make some organic matter close to life. You can rest assure, they will find how to convert matter into life. And, yes, life was created from simple matter, not spontaneously, but with the right environment. They already know that natural electricity played a role. Ignorance on how that was made is no excuse to say it was God. In the past, people said it was God that made thunders.
         Anyway, the fact we don't now how life was created has nothing to do with evolution. Could be God making the first bacteria and then leaving evolution do the rest.

          2) I guess you took this statement from the 1873 book or from some ignorant fanatic. Both plants and animals are made of cells based on DNA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_genetics). If everything started with cells, is it hard to believe that some cells evolved into plants and others into animals? There is no doubt whatsoever that animals and plants share a common ancestor (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/17/plant-and-animal-development-c/).

           3) This last one makes even less sense. We share between 94% and 96% of our genes with chimpanzees (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee#Evolutionary_relationship). It seems, God created not only men, but also chimps at his image. Saying we don't have a common ancestor is against this genetic evidence and all the fossils that show intermediate species between us.

           The statement that natural evolution didn't create any species is so absurd. Don't quote things like this, it ruins your reputation. Even us, human, have created new species. We recently have crossed genes from animals to plants, we created the dog from the wolf during a few thousand years, the modern cow from wild ones, etc; and by crossing dog species we created more than a hundred different races of dogs, by artificial selection. Do you think we can do better than nature?

          Currently, we don't real need the "god explanation" for nothing since the Big Bang. You can say it was God that made the big bang in order to make humans, but that makes little sense. God had to wait several thousand million years just for the creation of the first planets from matter created with the explosion of the first generation of stars, about 9 thousand million years to the creation of Earth and then more 4000 millions to the formation of complex animals and finally humans. That is absurd. God is very patience, but why wait for so long?
          And since modern humans exist since about 200,000 years ago, why send Abraham only 4000 years ago and Jesus 2000 years ago? God waited so long for humans and then left them without guidance for 196,000 years...
          For further absurdities, read https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12126292. I have other posts, but have no patience to go look for them.

Not true, these three conclusions do not need to be updated because the evidence remains the same as it always was. Is there any concrete evidence refuting even one of these three conclusions? Last I checked, there was not.

I will be happy to evaluate any evidence you may present; this is not about free will, it is about the strength of the evidence that fills in the three knowledge gaps identified by Dawson. Why don't you present that evidence in a way that plainly clarifies the knowledge gap?

By the way, "rational" means that you can intelligently engage with new ideas when presented.

Anyone arriving on some conclusions that go against current scientific knowledge based on someone that wrote in 1873, when no fossils had been identified correctly and there was no genetic science, has some serious updating to do on biology and the science of evolution.

Scientific knowledge is like reality, if you ignore it, bad things can happen: for instance, the house someone built might fall, because it wasn't constructed right, etc.

But this is a free world. Everyone has the right to believe in what he wants, even on peril of losing the girl on the first date (don't tell her you don't believe in evolution), beside some other short comings in general.

Life is a series of endless possibilities...  

The conclusions of the Modern Synthesis (Neo-Darwinism) are dogmas; they have not actually fulfilled their burden of evidence, as I have mentioned to Spoetnik.
Darwin’s gradual evolution was and is a myth that became a religion. It was actually proven that this is a myth by Dawson in 1873 and his conclusions remain valid today. Scientists know these limitations of evolutionary theory are true and will be enduring, but shamefully few have the nerve to address them openly.
Read more: http://www.lloydpye.com/essay_interventiontheory.htm

I can understand the perspective of an informed and intelligent believer. One that adapts his believes to the knowledge that science gives us about the universe and the world.

But I can't understand someone that believes in something he really knows nothing about (knows only what other people tell him, people that also know nothing about it), like life after death and God, based on believes that go against realities proved by science beyond any reasonable doubt, like evolution. We have millions of fossils, we have genetic studies supporting it, we have a theory that makes sense taking in account all this evidence... they have a book written in the bronze age... like many others, that say the opposite.

An intelligent believer could point out that we know little about what happened before the Big Bang, why the laws of science have their precise values or the exact way that converted simple matter into life. He could say, you see, it was God. But rejecting evolution, saying things like God created the universe in 6 days (rested on the seventh... he needed to rest?), he just destroys all credibility about what he is saying. Any people saying that a scientific conclusion is wrong has an heavy burden of evidence to fulfill.

Well, as Sam Harris said, if on a first date you say that you believe Elvis is still alive, instantly you'll pay the price: say good bye to your chances with the girl. If you say something that is similar, like saying you don't believe in evolution, you might still be lucky, but only if the girl is dumb.

There are times in war and other places, where a person gives up his life for his buddies, out of love. Not all of this can be for selfish reasons, every last time. There is often spur-of-the-moment, instantaneous action involved, to protect friends. Not all of that is selfishness. Some of it is love.

The fundamental theorem of natural selection (as explained by that Price Equation) has little to do with human behavior. Darwin’s gradual evolution was and is a myth that became a religion. You would have to be some kind of a religious believer (Darwinist?) if you think that math proves that love does not exist.