Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[Kondor3]

If some kind of God does exist, perhaps he-she-it-they created the laws of physics prior to creating the universe, and then proceeded to use those laws to create the universe - setting things into motion and nudging them along here-and-there, on a timeline of his-her-its-their own that is entirely unknown or unfathomable to mere mortals...

 

[Youwerecreated]

There are over 3,000 versions of the bible, so not only do you have to find the right religion, you have to find the right bible for that religion. The KJV claims to be the INSPIRED word of God, so now we know the KJV is a lie.
Thank you.

No you can get at the truth in all versions it's just that the kjv has many mistakes in it but there are some that will argue the other way.

I own 13 different versions and they all say the same thing just a little differently. It is the over all message that matters. You don't get to the truth by cherry picking scriptures to make them fit what you're trying to say.

But that is exactly what you are doing. You are jumping from bible to bible to change evil, a bad thing to troubles and sorrows as if they are good things. Bad is not good, bad is evil.

Nope, what i was doing was showing you the correct translation of that verse did you not read the link I posted ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

The Argument from Design impressed many people for many centuries -- until Darwin came along. One of the reasons that religious fanatics hate Evolution so much is that it explodes the Argument from Design.

I disagree. Darwin's theories attempt to explain how animals have changed over time. It does not even apply to origin of life. It also does not even present a theory regarding cross-genus speciation. People have taken Darwin's theory to an illogical step, and formed a false assumption. The fact that animals can change and adapt in order to survive, does not mean they can become a different animal. We see absolutely no evidence of this, and we can't reproduce it in a controlled lab environment, much less, expect it to have happened naturally. There is also the fact that some animals don't appear to have 'evolved' any at all, they remain virtually unchanged from the time they first appeared.

It amazes me at how often you see people arguing Evolution vs. Creation, as if these are competing ideas, when they certainly aren't. It is possible for both to be true, partially true, or false. Evolution does not defeat Creation and Creation does not defeat Evolution. They are two different arguments about different things, so we can't make the statement you just made, it's simply not accurate.

Regardless of how far back you go with the theories of how life originated, it can never defeat the concept of Creation. If a massive Big Bang caused the universe to form, and the theories of Abiogenesis are absolutely true, it still has not answered the questions of WHY? What caused the various elements to come into existence? What caused the various elements to behave in the way they do? What physical force created the universe when no physical universe was present? How did matter create matter? How did non-organic material create organic material? Why does electricity have the properties it has? (Note: I am not asking HOW it works, but WHY it works that way.)

It is interesting to me... Two molecules of Hydrogen and one molecule of Oxygen, form the essential building block of all living things we know. By the same token, remove just one molecule of Hydrogen, and you have something that destroys all life as we know.

Creationists have already chosen to reject evolution, for no rational reason other than it's not in the bible.
As for the Big Bang, you just supposed that a god made it happen because you don't know how it actually happened.

Not true,micro-evolution is a fact and can't be denied you need to get your facts straight. I prefer the term micro-adaptations because it more accurately describes what is really happening.

 

[daws101]

Thinking that one animal transformed into another is what you consider wisdom? I call it desperately searching for an explanation of something for which you haven't a clue.

Got any actual proof that evolution is not correct..?
I don't mean subjective fairy tales and pseudoscience..

The burden of proof is on you. By your standard, you should have to prove God doesn't exist. Can you do that?

wait a sec here, you have no idea what my standard is !
besides, where did I mention god?
but to answer, that if god existed then there would be easily recognizable features in everything that could not be explained any other way.
if you ever find that then you maybe on to something.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Thinking that one animal transformed into another is what you consider wisdom? I call it desperately searching for an explanation of something for which you haven't a clue.

Got any actual proof that evolution is not correct..?
I don't mean subjective fairy tales and pseudoscience..

The burden of proof is on you. By your standard, you should have to prove God doesn't exist. Can you do that?

No he can't do that nor can the brightest minds of science. He could not deal with the origins question he is to dense to understand what he believes is based in faith.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Creationists have already chosen to reject evolution, for no rational reason other than it's not in the bible.
As for the Big Bang, you just supposed that a god made it happen because you don't know how it actually happened.

And the reverse holds true for Evolutionists. You reject creationism because you can't explain it with physical science. That's why you came up with the Big Bang theory, which is no more provable than one species slowly morphing into another.

I reject creationism because I see zero proof that it happened that way, in fact, I see zero proof of any of the "big things" in the bible, like, Noah's ark, parting of the sea, a burning bush talking to Moses...

Of course you reject the evidence for design you believe in miracles like so many of your brethren.

 

[daws101]

No you can get at the truth in all versions it's just that the kjv has many mistakes in it but there are some that will argue the other way.

I own 13 different versions and they all say the same thing just a little differently. It is the over all message that matters. You don't get to the truth by cherry picking scriptures to make them fit what you're trying to say.

But that is exactly what you are doing. You are jumping from bible to bible to change evil, a bad thing to troubles and sorrows as if they are good things. Bad is not good, bad is evil.

Nope, what i was doing was showing you the correct translation of that verse did you not read the link I posted ?

the link you posted only confirms what edthecynic said about cherry picking.
it does not prove you to be correct.. using your own twisted logic, ALL copies of the bible are perfect because it's the word of god.
one cannot be more correct then all the others or it defeats the purpose of the perfect book.
asshat.

 

[daws101]

I reject creationism because I see zero proof that it happened that way, in fact, I see zero proof of any of the "big things" in the bible, like, Noah's ark, parting of the sea, a burning bush talking to Moses...

And I reject evolution because I see zero proof that life just happened through random chance, or that non-living organisms suddenly became living organisms with intelligence and reason, without an intelligent force involved.

my dad can beat up your dad !
talk about a juvenile response !

 

[daws101]

I disagree. Darwin's theories attempt to explain how animals have changed over time. It does not even apply to origin of life. It also does not even present a theory regarding cross-genus speciation. People have taken Darwin's theory to an illogical step, and formed a false assumption. The fact that animals can change and adapt in order to survive, does not mean they can become a different animal. We see absolutely no evidence of this, and we can't reproduce it in a controlled lab environment, much less, expect it to have happened naturally. There is also the fact that some animals don't appear to have 'evolved' any at all, they remain virtually unchanged from the time they first appeared.

It amazes me at how often you see people arguing Evolution vs. Creation, as if these are competing ideas, when they certainly aren't. It is possible for both to be true, partially true, or false. Evolution does not defeat Creation and Creation does not defeat Evolution. They are two different arguments about different things, so we can't make the statement you just made, it's simply not accurate.

Regardless of how far back you go with the theories of how life originated, it can never defeat the concept of Creation. If a massive Big Bang caused the universe to form, and the theories of Abiogenesis are absolutely true, it still has not answered the questions of WHY? What caused the various elements to come into existence? What caused the various elements to behave in the way they do? What physical force created the universe when no physical universe was present? How did matter create matter? How did non-organic material create organic material? Why does electricity have the properties it has? (Note: I am not asking HOW it works, but WHY it works that way.)

It is interesting to me... Two molecules of Hydrogen and one molecule of Oxygen, form the essential building block of all living things we know. By the same token, remove just one molecule of Hydrogen, and you have something that destroys all life as we know.

Creationists have already chosen to reject evolution, for no rational reason other than it's not in the bible.
As for the Big Bang, you just supposed that a god made it happen because you don't know how it actually happened.

Not true,micro-evolution is a fact and can't be denied you need to get your facts straight. I prefer the term micro-adaptations because it more accurately describes what is really happening.

false declaration based on a false premise!

 

[numan]

If some kind of God does exist, perhaps he-she-it-they created the laws of physics prior to creating the universe, and then proceeded to use those laws to create the universe - setting things into motion and nudging them along here-and-there, on a timeline of his-her-its-their own that is entirely unknown or unfathomable to mere mortals...

Or maybe not.

If I were an infinite God, I think I would have more important things to do.
.

 

[S.J.]

If some kind of God does exist, perhaps he-she-it-they created the laws of physics prior to creating the universe, and then proceeded to use those laws to create the universe - setting things into motion and nudging them along here-and-there, on a timeline of his-her-its-their own that is entirely unknown or unfathomable to mere mortals...

Finally, someone with an open mind. Science answers a lot of questions, but by rejecting the possibility of an intelligent force that doesn't fit into their narrow world of physical matter, they end up with some pretty ridiculous explanations of how things happened.
If science was so "dead on", there should be no unanswered questions. The simple and obvious fact that there is order in the universe should be enough to convince anyone that there is something or someone in charge who is far more intelligent than we are, but the self-proclaimed intellectuals (like the ones on this board) can't bring themselves to consider the possibility there could be something beyond their comprehension. Their narcissism keeps them ignorant.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Man I am glad I put that nut on Ignore so I don't have to respond to his venom filled posts based on ignorance.

 

[daws101]

And the reverse holds true for Evolutionists. You reject creationism because you can't explain it with physical science. That's why you came up with the Big Bang theory, which is no more provable than one species slowly morphing into another.

I reject creationism because I see zero proof that it happened that way, in fact, I see zero proof of any of the "big things" in the bible, like, Noah's ark, parting of the sea, a burning bush talking to Moses...

Of course you reject the evidence for design you believe in miracles like so many of your brethren.

way to intentionally misinterpret there YWC..
MOM never said design she said "big things"
besides there is no mention of god designing anything just creating stuff of to put it another way, he proofed everything in to existence....nothing else
so inferring design is a form of creating god in your own image....

 

[S.J.]

I reject creationism because I see zero proof that it happened that way, in fact, I see zero proof of any of the "big things" in the bible, like, Noah's ark, parting of the sea, a burning bush talking to Moses...

And I reject evolution because I see zero proof that life just happened through random chance, or that non-living organisms suddenly became living organisms with intelligence and reason, without an intelligent force involved.

my dad can beat up your dad !
talk about a juvenile response !

Can't argue the merits so you have to make it personal.

 

[Youwerecreated]

If some kind of God does exist, perhaps he-she-it-they created the laws of physics prior to creating the universe, and then proceeded to use those laws to create the universe - setting things into motion and nudging them along here-and-there, on a timeline of his-her-its-their own that is entirely unknown or unfathomable to mere mortals...

Or maybe not.

If I were an infinite God, I think I would have more important things to do.
.

Everything has been dealt with now it's just waiting on the right time to finish it.

 

[daws101]

If some kind of God does exist, perhaps he-she-it-they created the laws of physics prior to creating the universe, and then proceeded to use those laws to create the universe - setting things into motion and nudging them along here-and-there, on a timeline of his-her-its-their own that is entirely unknown or unfathomable to mere mortals...

Finally, someone with an open mind. Science answers a lot of questions, but by rejecting the possibility of an intelligent force that doesn't fit into their narrow world of physical matter, they end up with some pretty ridiculous explanations of how things happened.
If science was so "dead on", there should be no unanswered questions. The simple and obvious fact that there is order in the universe should be enough to convince anyone that there is something or someone in charge who is far more intelligent than we are, but the self-proclaimed intellectuals (like the ones on this board) can't bring themselves to consider the possibility there could be something beyond their comprehension. Their narcissism keeps them ignorant.

really! there are no shoulds in science ,that fact alone make your whole statement a steaming pile of wishful conjecture.

 

[daws101]

And I reject evolution because I see zero proof that life just happened through random chance, or that non-living organisms suddenly became living organisms with intelligence and reason, without an intelligent force involved.

my dad can beat up your dad !
talk about a juvenile response !

Can't argue the merits so you have to make it personal.

wrong! just pointing out the childish nature of your response.
if you took it personally, I must be correct.

 

[S.J.]

my dad can beat up your dad !
talk about a juvenile response !

Can't argue the merits so you have to make it personal.

wrong! just pointing out the childish nature of your response.
if you took it personally, I must be correct.

You haven't been correct about anything yet.

 

[Kondor3]

"...there are no shoulds in science..."

Within the framework of things that cannot be seen or heard or felt... conjecture, speculation and imagination are the cornerstones of theoretical science... nothing can be theorized nor sought nor gauged nor assessed nor proven nor disproven without the ability to conjure it first in the imagination and then to speculate upon its nature in a collaborative manner until something firmer and more reliable comes to light.

There are plenty of 'shoulds' in science.

Science is just another tool of Man, to articulate his perceptions of the measurable.

It is not the end-all-be-all Descriptor for Existence...

Merely a johnny-come-lately and strong Contender for that Honor.

Religion, Philosophy and Art are some of its strongest competitors and boast their own broad (and even older) hold upon the attention and affections of Humankind.

There is room enough for all - including hybrid explanations or beliefs.

 

[daws101]

Can't argue the merits so you have to make it personal.

wrong! just pointing out the childish nature of your response.
if you took it personally, I must be correct.

You haven't been correct about anything yet.

how'd I know you'd say that!
in fact I've been right about everything..