Evidence that God is real

[Write4U]

Somebody should look up the definition of the word exist

Love does not exist

It is a CONCEPT with no physicality or detectability

Isn't love an emotional experience and physicial feeling caused by the production of endorphins?

Of course, it is a fleeting moment and then it does no longer exists....

 

[Michael 345]

Isn't love an emotional experience and physicial feeling caused by the production of endorphins?

Of course, it is a fleeting moment and then it does no longer exists....

Yes no doubt all of those

But but but if you have all of those happenings happening what else could it be?

 

[Write4U]

Well, no. It can't be _science._ It can be truth. "We hold these truths to be self evident - that all men are created equal." That's not demonstrable or repeatable.

Is that a truth or an ideal?

 

[Write4U]

Yes no doubt all of those

But but but if you have all of those happenings happening what else could it be?

The god Eros?

Eros was the Greek god of Love, in some stories he first appears as a primordial god, born from CHAOS and in others he is the son of APHRODITE.

https://greekgodsandgoddesses.net/gods/eros/

p.s. a great resource.

 

[Michael 345]

The god Eros?

Doubtful but I am guessing you are not serious

So this is my approach to the questions about love and the existence of such

Isn't love an emotional experience and physicial feeling caused by the production of endorphins?

I ask the question "Why don't we have lie detector machines instead of the legal system we do have?"

It was invented in 1921 so the wrinkles should be worked out by now

Why? Because LIES do not exist

Go

 

[Write4U]

Doubtful but I am guessing you are not serious

So this is my approach to the questions about love and the existence of such

I ask the question "Why don't we have lie detector machines instead of the legal system we do have?"

It was invented in 1921 so the wrinkles should be worked out by now

Why? Because LIES do not exist

Go

Lies do exist in the mind of the liar. Problem is, that lie detectors do not test for brain waves, which are the signals of actual thought processes, but secondary results such as heart-rate and blood-pressure, which are consciously controllable.

The techniques for recording "thoughts" is relatively new and yes, there are several wrinkles to be ironed out.
But we are getting closer and I have read optimistic forecasts of 10-15 years before we can actually read minds...in a general sense such as pain, pleasure, guilt, deceit, etc......

Intuitively we can already read actions (body-language). Then it's called empathy......

 

[Michael 345]

The techniques for recording "thoughts" is relatively new and yes, there are several wrinkles to be ironed out.

I am doubtful, make that very doubtful, any equipment will be able to detect LIES as lies

Brain activity frequently seen when lies are being told but not LIES

Intuitively we can already read actions (body-language). Then it's called empathy......

Agree.

Which is why the operators of lie detectors like to be in the room when test conducted

Each have their own methods of reading the person under examination

In another forum I have asked (and I may have done so in this forum) why religion has not built a god detection machine?

Anyone reading this welcome to answer

 

[billvon]

Is that a truth or an ideal?

It is an ideal, of course - but is described as a truth in that document, and I have no doubt that many believe it to be a truth.

 

[DaveC426913]

In another forum I have asked (and I may have done so in this forum) why religion has not built a god detection machine?

Anyone reading this welcome to answer

Read Robert J. Sawyer's 'Neaderthal Parallax'. In it, electrical probes stimulate the "God Organ" - the pineal gland - which is thought to be the seat of strongly emotional an spiritual experiences in humans. The characters conclude that, with the ability to directly stimulate a transcendent "the love of God" experience, they have found the root cause of spiritual belief.

 

[Write4U]

Brain activity frequently seen when lies are being told but not LIES

We're just beginning to map the brain. Give it a little time to get our bearings in that landscape.

We are beginning to examine and fix things at nano-scales now. Very encouraging.......

This Quorum Sensing in cells is very exiting news. Hameroff and Penrose talk about wave-collapse when a treshold is crossed (similar to quantum), which is being disputed by others, but quorum sensing adds a self-regulating aspect to "decision making" at that level and may well play an important part in sentience and the process of thought.

 

[sideshowbob]

I have stopped looking, essentially, as I am pretty sure I have found it

So my point is confirmed.

 

[sideshowbob]

One main issue I have with “science” ( loosely defined ) is that unless there is demonstrable, concrete/repeatable experiences, it can’t be truth.

That's why we don't dwell on the concept of "truth". Reality is easier to pin down - i.e. demonstrate, replicate.

I can agree with the general premise here, but it cuts short potential possibities.

We have lifetimes of work to do in understanding reality without piling on a lot of empty speculation about "possibilities".

Why rule out the supernatural?

Because we can't demonstrate it or replicate it. Thus, as we have been discussing above, there is no way to distinguish it from natural that we don't understand yet.

Can science prove love? We know it exists, but can you measure it scientifically ? How?

Are you suggesting that love is supernatural?

 

[BlueSky]

Error

 

[DaveC426913]

We will wait patiently while you reboot.

 

[BlueSky]

We will wait patiently while you reboot.

Sorry for the delay gentlemen, I have been swamped by life.

My only point about the love issue is, love exists, we all know this, but how can we prove it’s existence? Is there a scientific test to prove it’s there? Can it be quantified, weighed, measured? Not to my knowledge, but we know it does.

Shall I proceed to evidence #2 for the existiance of God or are we still chatting about #1 ? I am not sure if there are any outstanding issues on #1. I don’t want to ignore anyone’s postings or objections.

I did watch most of the video that Write4U posted, but he did not answer to my understanding what the original catalyst was for the original Big Bang. The spontaneous generation of all elements in the first place.

God made a fully functional creation. Once created, these elements did what he designed them to do. They more in likely run and combine as directed. It reminds me of this joke...

The secular (atheist) scientist says to God…

“Hey, we scientists have figured out how to make life from dirt, just as described in that book of Yours, Genesis.

God: Oh yeah?

Scientist: Yep

God: Show Me.

Scientist: No problem!

So, the scientist started to gather some dirt, and just as he was about to start working with it, he was interrupted…

God: Hold it, stop!!

Scientist: What?

God: What are you doing?

Scientist: I’m gathering some dirt to generate life, just as described in Your book.

God: Get your own dirt…

I do not recall where I first heard this joke, so I cannot give it the credit that it is due. Regardless, it beautifully illustrates the creative difference between God and man. God can create from nothing, where man can only create from what already exists.

 

[BlueSky]

That's why we don't dwell on the concept of "truth". Reality is easier to pin down - i.e. demonstrate, replicate.

Why search for something if your not looking for the absolute truth? Kind of seems pointless to me. What are scientists search for then?

We have lifetimes of work to do in understanding reality without piling on a lot of empty speculation about "possibilities".

Looking at possible “possibilities” is part of the search for truth, no?

Because we can't demonstrate it or replicate it. Thus, as we have been discussing above, there is no way to distinguish it from natural that we don't understand yet.

We can’t prove love with a test but it’s here. Why the double standard? Natural and supernatural can co-exist.

Are you suggesting that love is supernatural?

Ultimately, yes, if God is there, it’s baked into the cake of creation. It’s the main reason for creation and ongoing side effect according to the Bible. God is love. Love is the reason for Jesus’s coming and for his death and resurrection.

 

[BlueSky]

So my point is confirmed.

Which point is that ? ( we’ve said allot in this so far ) I am convinced currently based upon what I have seen. Surely this acceptable?

 

[BlueSky]

We're just beginning to map the brain. Give it a little time to get our bearings in that landscape.

We are beginning to examine and fix things at nano-scales now. Very encouraging.......

This Quorum Sensing in cells is very exiting news. Hameroff and Penrose talk about wave-collapse when a treshold is crossed (similar to quantum), which is being disputed by others, but quorum sensing adds a self-regulating aspect to "decision making" at that level and may well play an important part in sentience and the process of thought.

I agree very cool stuff. But none of this refutes Gods existiance, instead, it actually supports his existiance. All of this ‘baked into the cake’ so to speak. All part of the creation. I would expect this kind of thing. Even deeper actually if we ever get there.

 

[BlueSky]

Read Robert J. Sawyer's 'Neaderthal Parallax'. In it, electrical probes stimulate the "God Organ" - the pineal gland - which is thought to be the seat of strongly emotional an spiritual experiences in humans. The characters conclude that, with the ability to directly stimulate a transcendent "the love of God" experience, they have found the root cause of spiritual belief.

There s another possible way to view this dame data. God built us with an innate drive to find and know him. A way to appreaciate “spiritual things”. This evidence actually proves that he is there.

Weird eh how the same evidence can been seen different ways. Which is truth ? Idk, but have a sense in one direction.

 

[Write4U]

Looking at possible “possibilities” is part of the search for truth, no?

It is not so much a matter of truth as it is of "understanding how things work", so that we can use those natural principles for our own purposes.