God is Reality

[nitammys]

God is every where.

[BADecker]

God must be an Alien.

The universe is like a terrarium in God's world.   

[Rezonans969]

God exists! It is necessary in this holy faith !

[TheLunacy]

god exist but calm down he's none of you

[Spoetnik]

God can't be real.. based on info we have.
God = Love right ?
Well there is no such thing.. we have proven mathematically that love is a delusion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_R._Price

Price developed a new interpretation of Fisher's fundamental theorem of natural selection, the Price equation, which has now been accepted as the best interpretation of a formerly enigmatic result.[7] He wrote what is still widely held to be the best mathematical, biological and evolutionary representation of altruism.

He proved with math that love does not exist !
Basically his formula states that any act of love is nothing but an act of altruism.
By that i mean every action ever taken by any person in all of history was done for some ulterior motive.
..usually selfish.
For example.
A mother looks after her child because it's in her best interest to procreate and keep the kid alive etc.
Is there some other kind of "bond" with the child ? maybe.. but that is not love probably just biochemistry.

I see with math we broke wide open the concept of love.
So if that is the case then all of the teachings of what ever god you worship is most likely complete bs.

There is also thousands of Religions around the world all contradicting each other.. soo ..uhhh ?

[FanEagle]

God must be an Alien.

There is a quite large probability that what you said is true

[clearfrcht]

God must be an Alien.

There is a quite large probability that what you said is true

Agreed. God is there.

[Vod]

[garrytaylor1]

God is a feeling a feeling of love and empathy.

[Ironhorse]

I do not see the world in places where you need it...

[1aguar]

Price developed a new interpretation of Fisher's fundamental theorem of natural selection, the Price equation, which has now been accepted as the best interpretation of a formerly enigmatic result.[7] He wrote what is still widely held to be the best mathematical, biological and evolutionary representation of altruism.

He proved with math that love does not exist !
Basically his formula states that any act of love is nothing but an act of altruism.

Colin Patterson, director of the British Museum of Natural History, stated: “No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has gotten near it.”

Actually, for math to prove that love does not exist, you would first need to overcome these three gaps in your reasoning:
The first fallacy is that life can spontaneously animate from organic material.
The second fallacy is the gap that separates plant and animal life.
The third gap in knowledge is that between any species of animal or plant and any other species.

These three fallacies that Dawson complained about in 1873 remain as "knowledge gaps" today. Scientists know these limitations of evolutionary theory are true and will be enduring, but shamefully few have the nerve to address them openly.

Indeed, evolutionists have been making the creationist mistake of allowing their theoretical framework to ossify into dogma and Darwin’s venerable theory is now slowly, methodically being exposed as the charade it was from its inception.
Read more: http://www.lloydpye.com/essay_interventiontheory.htm

[Spoetnik]

@1aguar
I don't see the link to what your talking about.. to what i said about G. Price's research.

It can be boiled down to a simple insight..
No matter what scenario you propose all of them have one thing in common.
That is each one can be explained by altruism.
Every action can have 1 or more motivations.. BUT all of them share that same excuse
The common denominator.. selfish reasoning.

I can give a homeless guy $20 on the street but i could have a variety of reasons why.
And many could be motivated because of subconscious reasons too.

So sorry i don't get how what i said and what you said are related.
Maybe your right i have no clue.. you went over my head in left field on me LOL

It was an interesting reply though so thanks for posting

[1aguar]

@1aguar
I don't see the link to what your talking about.. to what i said about G. Price's research.

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.

[BADecker]

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.

[Trading]

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.

[1aguar]

Any people saying that a scientific conclusion is wrong has an heavy burden of evidence to fulfill.

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

[fuathan]

Life is a series of endless possibilities...  

[Trading]

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.

[1aguar]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Trading]

        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://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=635960.msg12126292#msg12126292. I have other posts, but have no patience to go look for them.