Evidence for God from Science

B. W. wrote:

Audie wrote:...Ok, again noted in bold are facts not in evidence. You might find out, and you might not.
I might find out that the muz are right, and Im to hang by my hair in eternal fire for my sin of going absout without covering my hair.

do you do I does anyone know? No, the do not, so lets not pretend they do. Its a belief, a faith, a conviction.
Not knowledge.

Earlier, I said....If every single individual cell in the body lives, how can the body actually be dead?

Note the use of the word "clinically" used as a modifier for "dead". And the word "considerable" for the amount of time.

The workings of the human mind are of great interest. The bias involved in assuming that the person is actually "dead" and that what happens with the brain under some circumstances is evidence of a "soul" is not helpful in figuring out what is really going on.

To some spiritual beliefs, one's dreams are if anything, more real than ordinary waking life.
Is that true? What is really going on?

Regarding the above, I said, does anyone know? Your post is 100% unresponsive to my observations. All you did was claim to know that there is this god / afterlife thing, which you do not know.

You sound like and answer in the format I once used. I find it amusing.

WE have gone over what sin really is because what Jesus actually went through exposes what is inside each human heart, even yours. Audie, you admitted to not being perfect about the effects of betrayal, rejection, false witness, putting folks on personal trial (as you are doing so here), slaying hope and crucifying others hopes and dreams, stealing and breaking hearts, mocking, divide up the goodies and deny the true giver, point the finger of blame and falsify because folks will not conform. We've been done this road already and you certainly know you are not perfect as you practice these things, justify doing them and are doing them.

You cannot escape into your easy believism that there is nothing after death and thus escape consequences of your actions. You have God who is smarter and bigger than any of us leaving us a road map clearly marked out due to its uniqueness on a way back to Him as reconciled to receive and inheritance where there is no more sin, death, sickness... No other message from world's religions have the message that God saves by His grace by seeing what Jesus did upon the cross, exposing and dealing with sin once and for all, and raising from the dead Himself so we to can arise out of our trash heaps which we currently live.

Your brand of faith is mere easy believism. The Christian message is not easy believism, it is a reality of living and becoming acquainted with the God of the universe in a life altering way - that is much harder for folks like you to swallow. It is far easier to believe in NOTHING so you remain and always be NOTHING. Always seeking knowledge of the truth but never quite find it.

Audie, myself and others here on this form Know Jesus and He knows us. He wants you to get to know him. Just call out to him with an honest heart and He will show you.

That is all we can ask.

The length of hair is not the issue - the human heart is with all its abandonment, betrayal, rejection, abuse, mocking, etc and etc...

We all as human beings will one day encounter mortal death. None can escape that. I testify as well as others that there is life after death. You don't have to believe us because the true Christian message is not about making you conform but presenting a simple choice before you when before there was none. Make the right one.

We here are concerned over your eternal state...

Have a nice day
-
-
-

PaulSacramento wrote:According to Audie, all that we know and can prove in neuroscience means NOTHING.
Honestly now...this is getting ridiculous.

Seems like Audie wants to redefine dead based on HER definitions and not science.

It is very simple Audie, this is what science has proven with decades of study and observation:
A person is clinically dead with there is no breathing and no blood circulation.
A person is brain dead when there is no measurable brain activity.
These are not opinions but facts.

Science has NO ANSWER to "NDE" when it comes to people that are brain dead.

Now, one can make the argument that there could be SOME activity in the brain that is not measurable BUT that argument is not valid because the degree of measurement is so minuscule that ANY activity that COULD account for the explanation of a "NDE" would register and be detected.

In short, when a person is brain dead, there is ZERO activity in the brain, there is ZERO electrical impulses and ZERO firing of neurons.
It is not a question of there being some activity that CAN'T be detected, it is that there is NO ACTIVITY.

It is not like dealing with a person in a vegetative state where there is some brain activity BUT consciousness can't be detected.
It is NO BRAIN activity at all.

Audie: Ridiculous, and offensive is you making up shyt about me.

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:According to Audie, all that we know and can prove in neuroscience means NOTHING.
Honestly now...this is getting ridiculous.

Seems like Audie wants to redefine dead based on HER definitions and not science.

It is very simple Audie, this is what science has proven with decades of study and observation:
A person is clinically dead with there is no breathing and no blood circulation.
A person is brain dead when there is no measurable brain activity.
These are not opinions but facts.

Science has NO ANSWER to "NDE" when it comes to people that are brain dead.

Now, one can make the argument that there could be SOME activity in the brain that is not measurable BUT that argument is not valid because the degree of measurement is so minuscule that ANY activity that COULD account for the explanation of a "NDE" would register and be detected.

In short, when a person is brain dead, there is ZERO activity in the brain, there is ZERO electrical impulses and ZERO firing of neurons.
It is not a question of there being some activity that CAN'T be detected, it is that there is NO ACTIVITY.

It is not like dealing with a person in a vegetative state where there is some brain activity BUT consciousness can't be detected.
It is NO BRAIN activity at all.

Ridiculous, and offensive is you making up shyt about me.

Philip wrote:

Audie: Ridiculous, and offensive is you making up shyt about me.

Oh, Min, must you always default to the "you guys are attacking me / making things up about me" position?

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:According to Audie, all that we know and can prove in neuroscience means NOTHING.
Honestly now...this is getting ridiculous.

Seems like Audie wants to redefine dead based on HER definitions and not science.

It is very simple Audie, this is what science has proven with decades of study and observation:
A person is clinically dead with there is no breathing and no blood circulation.
A person is brain dead when there is no measurable brain activity.
These are not opinions but facts.

Science has NO ANSWER to "NDE" when it comes to people that are brain dead.

Now, one can make the argument that there could be SOME activity in the brain that is not measurable BUT that argument is not valid because the degree of measurement is so minuscule that ANY activity that COULD account for the explanation of a "NDE" would register and be detected.

In short, when a person is brain dead, there is ZERO activity in the brain, there is ZERO electrical impulses and ZERO firing of neurons.
It is not a question of there being some activity that CAN'T be detected, it is that there is NO ACTIVITY.

It is not like dealing with a person in a vegetative state where there is some brain activity BUT consciousness can't be detected.
It is NO BRAIN activity at all.

Ridiculous, and offensive is you making up shyt about me.

No one is making up anything about you, you have some martyr complex there girl, you sure you're not a Christian?

Fact is that you continually seem to ignore what science states about death, you bring up silly non-proven views such and hold on to them as if you are stating an issue that has not been addressed, ever.
You keep trying to cling to the ever-more-remote possibility that an NDE is simply some sort of brain activity that can't be detected BUT you have no evidence of this even being possible !
Seriously, I rarely say this but you are trying my patience on this one.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Philip wrote:

Audie: Ridiculous, and offensive is you making up shyt about me.

Oh, Min, must you always default to the "you guys are attacking me / making things up about me" position?

This shtick is getting old, fast.

PaulSacramento wrote:You may not be aware of this so I will give you the benefit of the doubt BUT you are making personal attacks now and they are with derogatory remarks.
This is unacceptable and you must stop.

EX:
Trying to make your crap into my emotional problem is disgusting
Making things up is not my shtick, its yours. it was old the first time and gets more rancid with ever repetition


You need to stop with this, now.

Now, IF any of the posters reading these last few exchanges feel that I have done what Audie is accusing me, please step forward and not only will I apologize to Audie BUT I will even do more than that.

Storyteller wrote:From what I've read it appears Audie is given a LOT of leeway.

Audie, you know I love you, dearly, but you do come across as condescending sometimes, especialy if you disagree.

No one is making things up about you. Maybe debating with you and pointing out that it appears the only truth you will accept is yours.

According to Audie, all that we know and can prove in neuroscience means NOTHING.
Honestly now...this is getting ridiculous.

Seems like Audie wants to redefine dead based on HER definitions and not science.