Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[Youwerecreated]

Only if God is energy and not a spirit, disproving your OP.
Thank you, problem solved!

God is a spirit that can materialize and as spirit possesses power. For anyone who believes in the God of the bible he is pretty well described as having power and no limitations.

Thank you for admitting that your deity is a paradox that cannot exist.

Only in your Ideological mind sorry for my opinion of you.

 

[Derideo_Te]

There was virtually no oxygen on the planet when life first formed. Oxygen was a waste product of one of the earliest forms of life.

Not possible if they can't bond to produce proteins and they have to bond in correct sequence. Makes no sense at all they would have been designed whole.

Plenty of chemicals can form bonds in water solutions. Your mindless insistence that they had to be "formed whole" is ridiculous. You have no understanding of the planetary conditions present 4 billion years ago.

You can't prove oxygen was not present in our early atmosphere. Name one atmosphere that doesn't contain oxygen.

Now imagine this planet if there were no atmosphere.

The Earth's Atmosphere

Maybe, maybe not,but it is certain that amino acids could not.

Your ignorance never fails to expose you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event

O2 build-up in the Earth's atmosphere. Red and green lines represent the range of the estimates while time is measured in billions of years ago (Ga).

Stage 1 (3.85–2.45 Ga): Practically no O2 in the atmosphere.

Stage 2 (2.45–1.85 Ga): O2 produced, but absorbed in oceans & seabed rock.

Stage 3 (1.85–0.85 Ga): O2 starts to gas out of the oceans, but is absorbed by land surfaces.

Stages 4 & 5 (0.85–present): O2 sinks filled and the gas accumulates.[1]

 

[Derideo_Te]

God is a spirit that can materialize and as spirit possesses power. For anyone who believes in the God of the bible he is pretty well described as having power and no limitations.

Thank you for admitting that your deity is a paradox that cannot exist.

Only in your Ideological mind sorry for my opinion of you.

Omnipotence is a paradox. Too bad that basic logic is anathema to believers like you.

 

[AVG-JOE]

At least that fits the evidence better than an ancient story describing some deity "breathing life" in to wads of clay to create life forms quite independent of each other.

At least it fits the evidence? This sounds like you are approaching science backwards to me. Finding something you call "evidence" and creating a scenario to fit it, is not practicing science, it is practicing faith.

Earlier in this thread, back on about page 3, I mentioned that it was interesting to note; among the dozens of theories of abiogenesis, one is the Clay Theory. A model for the origin of life based on clay was forwarded by A. Graham Cairns-Smith of the University of Glasgow in 1985 and explored as a plausible illustration by several scientists. The Clay hypothesis postulates that complex organic molecules arose gradually on a pre-existing, non-organic replication platform of silicate crystals in solution.

Hmmmmm...

Science is taking a theory and either proving it or disproving it based on the evidence.

6,000 to 10,000 year old earth versus a 4.5 billion year old earth - what does the evidence support?

Deity creating each individual life form versus intertwined and related life, created by chemical reaction and crafted by time, death and mutation - what does the evidence support?

While origins, sans proof of God, is impossible to prove one way or the other because the process cannot be repeated in a lab. Whether you believe that God created the earth in 6 days or that 4.5 billions years of dynamic chemical reactions is responsible for Monkeys who are capable of asking the question, that belief is based on faith.

O.k. - everyone who considers the origins of Earth and Her Monkeys at all MUST base their conclusions on their own faith in the evidence.

Ancient middle eastern stories of creation -vs- modern archeology, zoology, geology, astronomy, physics, medicine, history, etc., etc., etc.

What does the evidence say? ​

 

[Youwerecreated]

There was virtually no oxygen on the planet when life first formed. Oxygen was a waste product of one of the earliest forms of life.



Plenty of chemicals can form bonds in water solutions. Your mindless insistence that they had to be "formed whole" is ridiculous. You have no understanding of the planetary conditions present 4 billion years ago.

You can't prove oxygen was not present in our early atmosphere. Name one atmosphere that doesn't contain oxygen.

Now imagine this planet if there were no atmosphere.

The Earth's Atmosphere

Maybe, maybe not,but it is certain that amino acids could not.

Your ignorance never fails to expose you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event

O2 build-up in the Earth's atmosphere. Red and green lines represent the range of the estimates while time is measured in billions of years ago (Ga).

Stage 1 (3.85–2.45 Ga): Practically no O2 in the atmosphere.

Stage 2 (2.45–1.85 Ga): O2 produced, but absorbed in oceans & seabed rock.

Stage 3 (1.85–0.85 Ga): O2 starts to gas out of the oceans, but is absorbed by land surfaces.

Stages 4 & 5 (0.85–present): O2 sinks filled and the gas accumulates.[1]

Wiki now that is a source to behold and do you understand the difference between fact and theory ?

The Moon began orbiting very near the Earth, if we could run time backwards, in 1.2 billion years the Moon would be so close to Earth that the ocean tides would completely cover the mountains . Astronomers are aware of this problem and call it the lunar crisis. This evidence says that the Earth and Moon system must be less than 1.2 billion years old. If the Moon began orbiting Earth slightly inside the Moon’s present orbit, its age would be much less. Obviously, something is wrong with either the law of gravity or evolutionists belief that the Earth and Moon system is 4.6 billion years old.

I would trust Gravity over evolutionists theory.

 

[Youwerecreated]

At least that fits the evidence better than an ancient story describing some deity "breathing life" in to wads of clay to create life forms quite independent of each other.

At least it fits the evidence? This sounds like you are approaching science backwards to me. Finding something you call "evidence" and creating a scenario to fit it, is not practicing science, it is practicing faith.

Earlier in this thread, back on about page 3, I mentioned that it was interesting to note; among the dozens of theories of abiogenesis, one is the Clay Theory. A model for the origin of life based on clay was forwarded by A. Graham Cairns-Smith of the University of Glasgow in 1985 and explored as a plausible illustration by several scientists. The Clay hypothesis postulates that complex organic molecules arose gradually on a pre-existing, non-organic replication platform of silicate crystals in solution.

Hmmmmm...

Science is taking a theory and either proving it or disproving it based on the evidence.

6,000 to 10,000 year old earth versus a 4.5 billion year old earth - what does the evidence support?

Deity creating each individual life form versus intertwined and related life, created by chemical reaction and crafted by time, death and mutation - what does the evidence support?

While origins, sans proof of God, is impossible to prove one way or the other because the process cannot be repeated in a lab. Whether you believe that God created the earth in 6 days or that 4.5 billions years of dynamic chemical reactions is responsible for Monkeys who are capable of asking the question, that belief is based on faith.

O.k. - everyone who considers the origins of Earth and Her Monkeys at all MUST base their conclusions on their own faith in the evidence.

Ancient middle eastern stories of creation -vs- modern archeology, zoology, geology, astronomy, physics, medicine, history, etc., etc., etc.

What does the evidence say? ​

A theory is never proven,

 

[AVG-JOE]

At least it fits the evidence? This sounds like you are approaching science backwards to me. Finding something you call "evidence" and creating a scenario to fit it, is not practicing science, it is practicing faith.

Earlier in this thread, back on about page 3, I mentioned that it was interesting to note; among the dozens of theories of abiogenesis, one is the Clay Theory. A model for the origin of life based on clay was forwarded by A. Graham Cairns-Smith of the University of Glasgow in 1985 and explored as a plausible illustration by several scientists. The Clay hypothesis postulates that complex organic molecules arose gradually on a pre-existing, non-organic replication platform of silicate crystals in solution.

Hmmmmm...

Science is taking a theory and either proving it or disproving it based on the evidence.

6,000 to 10,000 year old earth versus a 4.5 billion year old earth - what does the evidence support?

Deity creating each individual life form versus intertwined and related life, created by chemical reaction and crafted by time, death and mutation - what does the evidence support?

While origins, sans proof of God, is impossible to prove one way or the other because the process cannot be repeated in a lab. Whether you believe that God created the earth in 6 days or that 4.5 billions years of dynamic chemical reactions is responsible for Monkeys who are capable of asking the question, that belief is based on faith.

O.k. - everyone who considers the origins of Earth and Her Monkeys at all MUST base their conclusions on their own faith in the evidence.

Ancient middle eastern stories of creation -vs- modern archeology, zoology, geology, astronomy, physics, medicine, history, etc., etc., etc.

What does the evidence say? ​

A theory is never proven,

No... a theory once proven is a fact.

Proof requires repeating a process to a same result over and over and over.

So far in our history, everything about God and origins is theory - nothing is proven in religion because nothing is repeatable.

All discussions of origins requires faith on all sides. The question a Monkey must ask is, "What is the evidence that supports my faith?"

 

[Boss]

There was virtually no oxygen on the planet when life first formed. Oxygen was a waste product of one of the earliest forms of life.

If there was no oxygen, there couldn't have been water. It is part oxygen.

Plenty of chemicals can form bonds in water solutions. Your mindless insistence that they had to be "formed whole" is ridiculous. You have no understanding of the planetary conditions present 4 billion years ago.

Again, if there is no oxygen present, there can be no water.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Science is taking a theory and either proving it or disproving it based on the evidence.

6,000 to 10,000 year old earth versus a 4.5 billion year old earth - what does the evidence support?

Deity creating each individual life form versus intertwined and related life, created by chemical reaction and crafted by time, death and mutation - what does the evidence support?

While origins, sans proof of God, is impossible to prove one way or the other because the process cannot be repeated in a lab. Whether you believe that God created the earth in 6 days or that 4.5 billions years of dynamic chemical reactions is responsible for Monkeys who are capable of asking the question, that belief is based on faith.

O.k. - everyone who considers the origins of Earth and Her Monkeys at all MUST base their conclusions on their own faith in the evidence.

Ancient middle eastern stories of creation -vs- modern archeology, zoology, geology, astronomy, physics, medicine, history, etc., etc., etc.

What does the evidence say? ​

A theory is never proven,

No... a theory once proven is a fact.

Proof requires repeating a process to a same result over and over and over.

So far in our history, everything about God and origins is theory - nothing is proven in religion because nothing is repeatable.

All discussions of origins requires faith on all sides. The question a Monkey must ask is, "What is the evidence that supports my faith?"

Simple Answer: Nothing is guaranteed 100%. (In life or physics)

Now to the physics part of the question.

Soft-Answer:

Physics uses positivism and observational proof through the scientific process. No observation is 100% accurate there is uncertainty in all measurement but repetition gives less chance for arbitrary results.

Every theory and for that matter laws in physics are observational representations that best allow prediction of future experiments. Positivism can overcome theological and philosophical discrepancies such as what is the human perception of reality. Is real actually real type questions.

The scientific process is an ever evolving representation of acquired knowledge based on rigorous experimental data.

No theory is set in stone so to speak as new results allow for modification and fine tuning of scientific theory.


soft question - Can a scientific theory ever be absolutely proven? - Physics Stack Exchange

 

[numan]

The Moon began orbiting very near the Earth, if we could run time backwards, in 1.2 billion years the Moon would be so close to Earth that the ocean tides would completely cover the mountains . Astronomers are aware of this problem and call it the lunar crisis. This evidence says that the Earth and Moon system must be less than 1.2 billion years old. If the Moon began orbiting Earth slightly inside the Moon’s present orbit, its age would be much less. Obviously, something is wrong with either the law of gravity or evolutionists belief that the Earth and Moon system is 4.6 billion years old.

"You Were Born Yesterday", you obviously have mush for brains.

Not only are you so ignorant that you do not know how oxygen was formed on the Earth, you are so incapable of reason as to assume that tidal effects are constant over time -- which means that you do not understand how tidal forces operate.

Tidal forces simultaneously drive the Moon farther away from the Earth and slow the rotation rate of the Earth. When the Moon was closer to the Earth, these forces were stronger; now that the Moon is farther away, the forces are weaker than they once were.

That means that the origin of the Earth-Moon System was much closer to 4.6 billion years ago than 1.2 billion years ago !!
.

 

[AVG-JOE]

A theory is never proven,

No... a theory once proven is a fact.

Proof requires repeating a process to a same result over and over and over.

So far in our history, everything about God and origins is theory - nothing is proven in religion because nothing is repeatable.

All discussions of origins requires faith on all sides. The question a Monkey must ask is, "What is the evidence that supports my faith?"

Simple Answer: Nothing is guaranteed 100%. (In life or physics)

Now to the physics part of the question.

Soft-Answer:

Physics uses positivism and observational proof through the scientific process. No observation is 100% accurate there is uncertainty in all measurement but repetition gives less chance for arbitrary results.

Every theory and for that matter laws in physics are observational representations that best allow prediction of future experiments. Positivism can overcome theological and philosophical discrepancies such as what is the human perception of reality. Is real actually real type questions.

The scientific process is an ever evolving representation of acquired knowledge based on rigorous experimental data.

No theory is set in stone so to speak as new results allow for modification and fine tuning of scientific theory.


soft question - Can a scientific theory ever be absolutely proven? - Physics Stack Exchange

Theory: Pure water turns to a solid when temperatures dip below 32 degrees Fahrenheit.

Experiment #1 - Yup.
Experiment #2 - Yup.
Experiment #3 - Yup.

Any experiments where pure water did NOT become solid below 32 degrees Fahrenheit?
No....

Conclusion: Pure water becoming a solid at temperatures below 32 degrees Fahrenheit is a PROVEN FACT.

WYGD?

 

[legaleagle_45]

Again, if there is no oxygen present, there can be no water.

Free oxygen was scarce as the element was bound into various compounds such as CO2 and H2O. Photo synthesis converted CO2 and H2O into O2... the oxygen which we breathe. The chemical conversion is as follows:

6 CO2 + 6 H2O + photons → C6H12O6 + 6 O2

or in english

carbon dioxide + water + sunlight → glucose + dioxygen

But you know that.

 

[Boss]

No... a theory once proven is a fact.

Proof requires repeating a process to a same result over and over and over.

So far in our history, everything about God and origins is theory - nothing is proven in religion because nothing is repeatable.

All discussions of origins requires faith on all sides. The question a Monkey must ask is, "What is the evidence that supports my faith?"

Once you have determined a theory is proven fact, you begin practicing faith and stop practicing science. Proof does not require anything other than faith and belief. So far in our history, there is no physical evidence of a spiritual god.

Science does not determine theories are proven fact, it remains constantly open to possibility, regardless of probabilities. When you assume science has concluded, you are wrong. You are actually adopting a faith-based belief that science has concluded something. Even something so physically absolute as gravity, is not "proven fact" by science. There is still the remote possibility that gravity will not behave according to prediction.

Proof and evidence is subjective, always. Science does not determine what constitutes proof or evidence, this is a determination humans make as a result of faith in science. As I pointed out in the OP, some people are not capable of understanding spiritual proof, which like scientific proof, requires faith.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The Moon began orbiting very near the Earth, if we could run time backwards, in 1.2 billion years the Moon would be so close to Earth that the ocean tides would completely cover the mountains . Astronomers are aware of this problem and call it the lunar crisis. This evidence says that the Earth and Moon system must be less than 1.2 billion years old. If the Moon began orbiting Earth slightly inside the Moon’s present orbit, its age would be much less. Obviously, something is wrong with either the law of gravity or evolutionists belief that the Earth and Moon system is 4.6 billion years old.

"You Were Born Yesterday", you obviously have mush for brains.

Not only are you so ignorant that you do not know how oxygen was formed on the Earth, you are so incapable of reason as to assume that tidal effects are constant over time -- which means that you do not understand how tidal forces operate.

Tidal forces simultaneously drive the Moon farther away from the Earth and slow the rotation rate of the Earth. When the Moon was closer to the Earth, these forces were stronger; now that the Moon is farther away, the forces are weaker than they once were.

That means that the origin of the Earth-Moon System was much closer to 4.6 billion years ago than 1.2 billion years ago !!
.

Oh did my math hit a nerve

 

[Boss]

Again, if there is no oxygen present, there can be no water.

Free oxygen was scarce as the element was bound into various compounds such as CO2 and H2O. Photo synthesis converted CO2 and H2O into O2... the oxygen which we breathe. The chemical conversion is as follows:

6 CO2 + 6 H2O + photons → C6H12O6 + 6 O2

or in english

carbon dioxide + water + sunlight → glucose + dioxygen

But you know that.

So oxygen most certainly DID exist on the planet.
"No oxygen was present" is a lie, correct?

 

[daws101]

Hello Montrovant, my opinion is based on what the scriptures say concerning God.

more proof the scriptures are inaccurate...to say nothing of your opinion.
if god could make everything and presumably do everything then there is no logical reason for god not to do these things if for no other reason then to understand what it was like to be the things he created.

Sounds like a human criteria you are applying to god. Why would god have ANY need? Why would god need to understand? What is there for god to understand? What you have done, like so many atheists, and religious folks for that matter, is to apply humanistic standards to god. As humans, I think this is just in our nature to do, we can't help it. In order for us to comprehend god, we have to define god with human characteristics. So we imagine god becoming angry if we don't do what he wants... why wouldn't god simply vaporize us and send our soul to hell instantly? OR a god who needs and wants us to praise him... why didn't god just make us do this naturally, like breathing? God doesn't need anything from you, god doesn't care if you believe in god or not, nor does it hurt god's feelings if you spend every waking hour of your relatively short existence, bashing, trashing, and ridiculing god's existence.

rolf!
love it when you asshats pontificate...
they apply because god is a concept of man...even stranger is you thumpers consistently remaking god in you own image.. that whole last paragraph of zealot noise is a fine example.
btw if anything I'm bASHING trashing and ridiculing your false witness of god. not the imaginary being it's self.

 

[daws101]

No, it has been proven that energy cannot be created.

Then god can't be created. Problem solved!

or create since it' takes energy to create or destroy.
real problem solved.

 

[daws101]

Then god can't be created. Problem solved!

Only if God is energy and not a spirit, disproving your OP.
Thank you, problem solved!

God is a spirit that can materialize and as spirit possesses power. For anyone who believes in the God of the bible he is pretty well described as having power and no limitations.

Mat 19:26 And Jesus looking upon them said to them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Jer 10:12 He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and by his understanding hath he stretched out the heavens.

Psa 62:11 God hath spoken once, Twice have I heard this, That power belongeth unto God.

Psa 66:7 He ruleth by his might for ever; His eyes observe the nations: Let not the rebellious exalt themselves. Selah.

Psa 79:11 Let the sighing of the prisoner come before thee: According to the greatness of thy power preserve thou those that are appointed to death;

Job 26:14 Lo, these are but the outskirts of his ways: And how small a whisper do we hear of him! But the thunder of his power who can understand?

Job 9:4 He is wise in heart, and mighty in strength: Who hath hardened himself against him, and prospered? -

1Co 6:14 and God both raised the Lord, and will raise up as through his power.

2Co 13:4 for he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth through the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but we shall live with him through the power of God toward you.

2Co 6:7 in the word of truth, in the power of God; by the armor of righteousness on the right hand and on the left,

Psa 136:12 With a strong hand, and with an outstretched arm; For his lovingkindness endureth for ever:

Isa 26:4 Trust ye in Jehovah for ever; for in Jehovah, even Jehovah, is an everlasting rock.

Eph 6:10 Finally, be strong in the Lord, and in the strength of his might.

Zep 3:17 Jehovah thy God is in the midst of thee, a mighty one who will save; he will rejoice over thee with joy; he will rest in his love; he will joy over thee with singing.

 

[AVG-JOE]

No... a theory once proven is a fact.

Proof requires repeating a process to a same result over and over and over.

So far in our history, everything about God and origins is theory - nothing is proven in religion because nothing is repeatable.

All discussions of origins requires faith on all sides. The question a Monkey must ask is, "What is the evidence that supports my faith?"

Once you have determined a theory is proven fact, you begin practicing faith and stop practicing science. Proof does not require anything other than faith and belief. So far in our history, there is no physical evidence of a spiritual god.

Science does not determine theories are proven fact, it remains constantly open to possibility, regardless of probabilities. When you assume science has concluded, you are wrong. You are actually adopting a faith-based belief that science has concluded something. Even something so physically absolute as gravity, is not "proven fact" by science. There is still the remote possibility that gravity will not behave according to prediction.

Proof and evidence is subjective, always. Science does not determine what constitutes proof or evidence, this is a determination humans make as a result of faith in science. As I pointed out in the OP, some people are not capable of understanding spiritual proof, which like scientific proof, requires faith.

"Spiritual proof"?

 

[Boss]

more proof the scriptures are inaccurate...to say nothing of your opinion.
if god could make everything and presumably do everything then there is no logical reason for god not to do these things if for no other reason then to understand what it was like to be the things he created.

Sounds like a human criteria you are applying to god. Why would god have ANY need? Why would god need to understand? What is there for god to understand? What you have done, like so many atheists, and religious folks for that matter, is to apply humanistic standards to god. As humans, I think this is just in our nature to do, we can't help it. In order for us to comprehend god, we have to define god with human characteristics. So we imagine god becoming angry if we don't do what he wants... why wouldn't god simply vaporize us and send our soul to hell instantly? OR a god who needs and wants us to praise him... why didn't god just make us do this naturally, like breathing? God doesn't need anything from you, god doesn't care if you believe in god or not, nor does it hurt god's feelings if you spend every waking hour of your relatively short existence, bashing, trashing, and ridiculing god's existence.

rolf!
love it when you asshats pontificate...
they apply because god is a concept of man...even stranger is you thumpers consistently remaking god in you own image.. that whole last paragraph of zealot noise is a fine example.
btw if anything I'm bASHING trashing and ridiculing your false witness of god. not the imaginary being it's self.

Well, you can rofl all you like, and continue exercising your faith that god doesn't exist, but you have not proven this to me or 95% of the humans who've ever lived. We have an undeniable connection to something, and it can't be explained in the physical sense, with physical science, yet it is there. Scoff at it, ridicule it, call it names, it's still there.

In order to believe in the evidence for science, in order to believe that science "proves" things, don't you have to believe in science itself? If you have chosen to reject science in favor of, say, spiritual evidence... would there ever be any way to convince you with scientific evidence? Of course not, so why should you ever be convinced of a spiritual entity, if you reject spiritual evidence and spiritual nature? You can't be, no one has the power to open your mind except you. In order to evaluate whether a god exists in a spiritual sense, which IS the question, then you MUST evaluate spiritual evidence objectively, and you have closed your mind to this.