Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[dblack]

It is illogical to assume life exists only on this planet.

Say's who ? you let me know when life is discovered on another planet. That is kind of the approach of Darwin by assuming that the fossil record would show a slow gradual evolution of organisms and his theory failed. Some are just not willing to admit it though and continue with the charade.

So assuming we find life somewhere else, what's your position then?

It's possible we'll move on toward a more sane appreciation of religion at that point.

No LIKELY. But possible.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It is illogical to assume life exists only on this planet.

Say's who ? you let me know when life is discovered on another planet. That is kind of the approach of Darwin by assuming that the fossil record would show a slow gradual evolution of organisms and his theory failed. Some are just not willing to admit it though and continue with the charade.

So assuming we find life somewhere else, what's your position then?

That would be a battle of faith because there are many things God has not shared with mankind but it would make me question my faith.

It would be, is it just that God did not tell us life was on other planets or does God exist ? I still would be troubled because there is no evidence for spontaneous generation.

 

[AVG-JOE]

There is plenty of evidence of a designer if there is no designer life was a miracle.

You don't know that a designer was present, it's just wishful thinking on your part. What evidence?

You believe a non-intelligent and undirected natural process would purposefully produce the many things necessary for life ? Do you believe that it is logical to assume that all the things necessary for life are only found on this planet in our solar system ?

No...

But I do believe that a non-intelligent and undirected natural process would, over time, produce the many things necessary for life and for life to evolve spectacularly. I also believe that liquid water and all the necessary chemicals for life are quite abundant in the universe.

I ass-u-me that you believe the creation process as described in the ancient story called The Bible?

What we have here is 2 Monkeys, neither of whom have any proof, with a difference of opinion about where Monkeys came from. WYGD?

 

[dblack]

You don't know that a designer was present, it's just wishful thinking on your part. What evidence?

You believe a non-intelligent and undirected natural process would purposefully produce the many things necessary for life ? Do you believe that it is logical to assume that all the things necessary for life are only found on this planet in our solar system ?

No...

But I do believe that a non-intelligent and undirected natural process would, over time, produce the many things necessary for life and for life to evolve spectacularly. I also believe that liquid water and all the necessary chemicals for life are quite abundant in the universe.

I ass-u-me that you believe the creation process as described in the ancient story called The Bible?

What we have here is 2 Monkeys with a difference of opinion about where Monkeys came from. WYGD?

But if YWC is right, the reward is eternal paradise. If you're right, all you get is a deeper understanding of the natural world.

 

[Boss]

You are simply a pathological liar!. Irreducible Complexity was coined by Behe and is the central tenet of Intelligent Design Creationism. It is the opposite of Evolutionary Theory.

Oh, I know Behe coined the phrase, but the principle is actually part of Darwin's theory. It is not the 'opposite' of anything, because Evolution deals with species evolving, not origin. Darwin made a very detailed analytical standard for natural selection, because he realized it couldn't simply be used willy-nilly to explain anything and everything.

Here is what Darwin said regarding his theory and the human eye: “to suppose that the eye ... could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree”. He goes on to explain that if gradual evolution of the eye could be shown to be possible, “the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection ... can hardly be considered real”. He then proceeded to roughly map out a likely course for evolution using examples of gradually more complex eyes of various species.

Now it is on this prerequisite of natural selection, Behe makes his argument for irreducible complexity. The powers of natural selection are not predictive, they can't presume to know that a photoreceptor spot is going to need a lens, an iris and pupil, and then form it. IF evolution is this amazing, it is more of a miracle than God. The simple photoreceptor cells, which Darwin very well knew about, were thought for a long time, to be a predecessor to the modern eye, but as we've learned more about the optic nerve and chemical reactions, the more we understand the two systems are completely different. Humans do not utilize the optic nerve in the same way as something with a photoreceptor cell. The operation of the optic nerve is entirely different, but Darwin didn't know this.

So the evolution of the eye has not been shown, as Darwin previously thought. The eye is irreducibly complex, meaning; if any one component of the eye is not present, the system doesn't work. If evolution is responsible, it had to 'intelligently' compile a checklist of parts needed, and construct what we know to be an eye. There is no "simpler stage" the eye could have had, and still function at all. What we once thought to be links to primitive photovoltaic spots, turned out to be false leads, the systems are completely different and operate on a completely different principle.

Behe's argument is not to be carried as far as you rhetorically like to carry it. Natural selection can indeed produce a more complex or robust system over time, but it has to work within the confines of what is natural and within bounds of nature. It can't predict that various components will eventually be needed and start building those, so they are complete when everything else is in place. That's just not how natural selection works. If you believe that natural selection has the ability to be predictive like this, you believe in "intelligent" design.

Behe himself credits William Paley for the concept, not Darwin.

Again, Behe coined the phrase, credited Paley with the concept, but the principle of the argument is found in Darwinist theory.

And your Darwin quote is a perfect example of the dishonest quote mining of Creationist liars. Darwin went on to explain that if gradual evolution of the eye could be shown to be possible, “the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection ... can hardly be considered real”. He then proceeded to roughly map out a likely course for evolution using examples of gradually more complex eyes of various species. But as a know-it-all you knew that already.

You're just repeating what I said, you're not contradicting anything. Natural selection is bound by certain limits or rules, and this is why Darwin has to offer a likely course for evolution. Turns out, he was incorrect regarding evolution of the eye. Therefore, in his own words, it is absurd to believe the eye is produced by natural selection.

If you remember, our ancient little part plant part animal the Euglena had an eye spot to help it find the light for photosynthesis. Through random mutation across the population, the photosensitive cells happened to have developed on a small depression, it endowed the organism with a better sense of the light's source. This small change gave the organism an advantage over those without the mutation. This genetic trait would then be "selected for" as those with the trait would have an increased chance of survival, and therefore progeny, over those without the trait. Individuals with deeper depressions would be able to discern changes in light over a wider field than those individuals with shallower depressions. As ever deeper depressions were advantageous to the organism, gradually, this depression would become a pit into which light would strike certain cells depending on its angle. The organism slowly gained increasingly precise visual information. And again, this gradual process continued as individuals having a slightly shrunken aperture of the eye had an advantage over those without the mutation as an aperture increases how collimated the light is at any one specific group of photoreceptors. As this trait developed, the eye became effectively a pinhole camera which allowed the organism to dimly make out shapes—the nautilus is a modern example of an animal with such an eye. Finally, via this same selection process, a protective layer of transparent cells over the aperture was differentiated into a crude lens, and the interior of the eye was filled with humours to assist in focusing images. In this way, eyes are recognized by modern biologists as actually a relatively unambiguous and simple structure to evolve.

Yes, this is precisely how Darwin explained it in 1859. What we eventually would discover, is the photosensitive cell system is completely different from the human optic nerve system. One operates on chemical reaction from light stimulation, the other works on electric impulses to the brain from an optic nerve, receiving an image. Two completely different and unique systems of operation. So when you theorize the precursor to the modern eye was a pit or depression, the human eye would be of no use, it would not function at all. The way a pinhole camera functions, flips the image, so the retina in a human eye, receives the information upside down, and our brain transposes the information right-side-up, a step that is totally unnecessary for a photosensitive spot.

You are trying to take an 1859 understanding, and force-fit that understanding, regardless of what science has learned since that time. What Darwin theorized, is not supported by the evidence here.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You believe a non-intelligent and undirected natural process would purposefully produce the many things necessary for life ? Do you believe that it is logical to assume that all the things necessary for life are only found their way on this planet in our solar system ?

It is illogical to assume life exists only on this planet.

I agree with Ed, life is all over the universe and we'll probably find some extra-terrestial life in our lifetime. Life is built in to this universe. By a designer? Maybe. But I see no actual proof yet to say that for sure.

"Life is all over the universe", you state that as if it's a fact yet there is no proof of it.

So my question is how can you make such a claim without any evidence while reserving your position on the existence of God until you see evidence?

 

[Derideo_Te]

You believe a non-intelligent and undirected natural process would purposefully produce the many things necessary for life ? Do you believe that it is logical to assume that all the things necessary for life are only found on this planet in our solar system ?

No...

But I do believe that a non-intelligent and undirected natural process would, over time, produce the many things necessary for life and for life to evolve spectacularly. I also believe that liquid water and all the necessary chemicals for life are quite abundant in the universe.

I ass-u-me that you believe the creation process as described in the ancient story called The Bible?

What we have here is 2 Monkeys with a difference of opinion about where Monkeys came from. WYGD?

But if YWC is right, the reward is eternal paradise. If you're right, all you get is a deeper understanding of the natural world.

AJ has the satisfaction of a life lived to the fullest whereas YWC wastes his serving a fictional master in expectation of an imaginary "reward" that he won't be around to enjoy.

 

[S.J.]

Say's who ? you let me know when life is discovered on another planet. That is kind of the approach of Darwin by assuming that the fossil record would show a slow gradual evolution of organisms and his theory failed. Some are just not willing to admit it though and continue with the charade.

So assuming we find life somewhere else, what's your position then?

That would be a battle of faith because there are many things God has not shared with mankind but it would make me question my faith.

It would be, is it just that God did not tell us life was on other planets or does God exist ? I still would be troubled because there is no evidence for spontaneous generation.

How do we know that God didn't put life on many other planets, each with their own history and circumstances? Why would the discovery of life on another planet mean there is no God? If he created the universe, why would he only put life on one planet?

 

[Boss]

I'm always looking to see if anyone has any real proof of a god, and what their arguments might be, because I find the subject interesting. Is that ok?

So you accept the possibility that there is a God?

I'm agnostic, I see no proof either way, so yes, until disproven with actual facts, a god is a possibility. But so far, I see no actual facts supporting a claim for the existence of a god.

Have you read the OP argument? It lays out perfectly valid evidence and shows how god can be proven to definitively exist. Now, if you are not willing to examine (or even accept) the spiritual evidence, there is no way to 'prove' god to you. If you are expecting physical evidence of a spiritual entity, you may as well become an atheist.

We've been through all of this philosophically, "proof" is what you perceive to be proof. Facts are things you have faith in being true. If you don't believe in a spiritual realm, spiritual nature, or spiritual entities, then even the simple nature of "existence" means something different to you. No one will ever be able to prove physical existence of god, if they did, god would instantly cease to be a spiritual entity, and become physical. The only way to even try and evaluate this question, is to acknowledge and accept spiritual evidence and believe in spiritual existence. If your mind remains closed to that possibility, god can never be proven to exist to you.

 

[Boss]

So assuming we find life somewhere else, what's your position then?

That would be a battle of faith because there are many things God has not shared with mankind but it would make me question my faith.

It would be, is it just that God did not tell us life was on other planets or does God exist ? I still would be troubled because there is no evidence for spontaneous generation.

How do we know that God didn't put life on many other planets, each with their own history and circumstances? Why would the discovery of life on another planet mean there is no God? If he created the universe, why would he only put life on one planet?

I love when the god-haters posit the notion that life on another planet would dispel god. What if we discovered another intelligent civilization, vastly different than ours in so many ways, completely different homeostasis, but the one common thing we find is an inherent spiritual belief in a higher power? My guess is, the god-haters would chalk it up to yet another remarkable coincidence. Reason being, they've already done that here on our planet. When Columbus and others ventured west to discover the "New World" they found Aztecs and Mayans practicing spirituality. They found Native Americans doing the same. Isolated island tribes... same thing. Over and over, we've discovered human civilization accompanied by human spirituality.

 

[numan]

'
Give it up Bossy Man and YouWereBornYesterday !!

For thousands of years deep thinkers with far more subtle minds than you two characters have tried to prove the existence of God, and there have always turned out to be flaws in their arguments.
.

 

[Derideo_Te]

It is illogical to assume life exists only on this planet.

I agree with Ed, life is all over the universe and we'll probably find some extra-terrestial life in our lifetime. Life is built in to this universe. By a designer? Maybe. But I see no actual proof yet to say that for sure.

"Life is all over the universe", you state that as if it's a fact yet there is no proof of it.

So my question is how can you make such a claim without any evidence while reserving your position on the existence of God until you see evidence?

The mathematical probability of planets around other suns was almost 100% long before there was any evidence for the existence of those planets. The mathematical probability of life existing elsewhere on at least 1 other planet around the 1022 to 1024 stars in the visible universe is also virtually 100%. It takes a very special kind of arrogance to believe that this is the only planet in the entire universe with life on it.

 

[Boss]

'
Give it up Bossy Man and YouWereBornYesterday !!

For thousands of years deep thinkers with far more subtle minds than you two characters have tried to prove the existence of God, and there have always turned out to be flaws in their arguments.
.

The only flaw in my argument is the assumption everybody can read and comprehend it. I have proved god's existence definitively, you just don't accept spiritual evidence, and thus, have no concept of spiritual existence. As my argument correctly states, god can never be proven to you. In order to meet your criteria, god would have to become a physical entity, because that is the only "evidence" you will acknowledge.

In order to drive home this point, I have juxtaposed what you believe, with someone who rejects scientific evidence in favor of "spiritual enlightenment," and rejects any argument you may present based in science. If you are trying to scientifically explain how rain happens, the evaporation process, etc., and they just look at you with a dumb stare, and say... but god didn't tell me that, so it's not true! What can you do? How can you ever convince that person? They've closed their minds to physical science, they reject any belief in it whatsoever.... so how can you prove anything to them, using science?

You are on the other side of this coin, you reject the spiritual evidence required to understand spiritual existence, the terms are greek to you, because you reject spiritual nature altogether. I can explain it until I am blue in the face, you are still not going to accept spiritual evidence, therefore, I can never prove god exists to you.

 

[Derideo_Te]

'
Give it up Bossy Man and YouWereBornYesterday !!

For thousands of years deep thinkers with far more subtle minds than you two characters have tried to prove the existence of God, and there have always turned out to be flaws in their arguments.
.

The only flaw in my argument is the assumption everybody can read and comprehend it. I have proved god's existence definitively, you just don't accept spiritual evidence, and thus, have no concept of spiritual existence. As my argument correctly states, god can never be proven to you. In order to meet your criteria, god would have to become a physical entity, because that is the only "evidence" you will acknowledge.

In order to drive home this point, I have juxtaposed what you believe, with someone who rejects scientific evidence in favor of "spiritual enlightenment," and rejects any argument you may present based in science. If you are trying to scientifically explain how rain happens, the evaporation process, etc., and they just look at you with a dumb stare, and say... but god didn't tell me that, so it's not true! What can you do? How can you ever convince that person? They've closed their minds to physical science, they reject any belief in it whatsoever.... so how can you prove anything to them, using science?

You are on the other side of this coin, you reject the spiritual evidence required to understand spiritual existence, the terms are greek to you, because you reject spiritual nature altogether. I can explain it until I am blue in the face, you are still not going to accept spiritual evidence, therefore, I can never prove god exists to you.

Too bad you have utterly failed to get past the FACT that spiritualism is a nothing more than a state of mind of a PHYSICAL BRAIN. All that you have "proved" is that you BELIEVE in fairies, ghosts, goblins and unicorns. No one is disputing your right to believe in nonsense however pretending that fairies, ghosts, et al are real does not make them exist.

 

[Boss]

I agree with Ed, life is all over the universe and we'll probably find some extra-terrestial life in our lifetime. Life is built in to this universe. By a designer? Maybe. But I see no actual proof yet to say that for sure.

"Life is all over the universe", you state that as if it's a fact yet there is no proof of it.

So my question is how can you make such a claim without any evidence while reserving your position on the existence of God until you see evidence?

The mathematical probability of planets around other suns was almost 100% long before there was any evidence for the existence of those planets. The mathematical probability of life existing elsewhere on at least 1 other planet around the 1022 to 1024 stars in the visible universe is also virtually 100%. It takes a very special kind of arrogance to believe that this is the only planet in the entire universe with life on it.

There is a distinct difference between a statement that "life is all over the universe" and "there is a high mathematical probability life exists elsewhere." Seems to me, until you can find life elsewhere, it is illogical to say life is everywhere. It may indeed be possible, highly probable, almost certain... but until it is proven it isn't proven.

But this does beg the question, if the universe is full of life-enabling elements, why do we not see an abundance of life around us? Why is it we find no other place in our solar system, where life as we know it on Earth, could even survive? The more we look out into our universe, the more we are discovering these conditions on Earth are sort of special. They are not common, as best we can tell. Lots of candidates close enough to their sun, but covered in methane clouds... lots more with no atmosphere to speak of... some so affected by volcanic eruptions and massive electrical storms, life couldn't survive if it ever did exist there. So no, you have NOT proven "life is everywhere in the universe" ...far from it! You have not shown ANY sign of extraterrestrial life. Yet, here you are, claiming it true!

 

[Montrovant]

Boss, can you define spiritual evidence please?

From what I have gathered thus far, it sounds almost like it could also mean emotional evidence. I say that because, as you say the spiritual has no physical manifestation, that it is neither matter nor energy, the only way to 'see' or 'experience' the spiritual is through a vague notion of feeling it.

If the spiritual is those things which we cannot detect with our 5 senses, which we cannot see repetitive reactions to, but we believe exist....well, that's some pretty thin logic if it can be called logic at all. Of course many will not accept that. Every false myth that's ever existed could be explained like that.

If there is a more refined definition of the spiritual, one that makes sense to those who don't already accept the existence of the spiritual, that would be wonderful. Much better than needing to believe in the spiritual in order to believe in the spiritual.

 

[Montrovant]

"Life is all over the universe", you state that as if it's a fact yet there is no proof of it.

So my question is how can you make such a claim without any evidence while reserving your position on the existence of God until you see evidence?

The mathematical probability of planets around other suns was almost 100% long before there was any evidence for the existence of those planets. The mathematical probability of life existing elsewhere on at least 1 other planet around the 1022 to 1024 stars in the visible universe is also virtually 100%. It takes a very special kind of arrogance to believe that this is the only planet in the entire universe with life on it.

There is a distinct difference between a statement that "life is all over the universe" and "there is a high mathematical probability life exists elsewhere." Seems to me, until you can find life elsewhere, it is illogical to say life is everywhere. It may indeed be possible, highly probable, almost certain... but until it is proven it isn't proven.

But this does beg the question, if the universe is full of life-enabling elements, why do we not see an abundance of life around us? Why is it we find no other place in our solar system, where life as we know it on Earth, could even survive? The more we look out into our universe, the more we are discovering these conditions on Earth are sort of special. They are not common, as best we can tell. Lots of candidates close enough to their sun, but covered in methane clouds... lots more with no atmosphere to speak of... some so affected by volcanic eruptions and massive electrical storms, life couldn't survive if it ever did exist there. So no, you have NOT proven "life is everywhere in the universe" ...far from it! You have not shown ANY sign of extraterrestrial life. Yet, here you are, claiming it true!

Of course, our solar system is such an infinitesimal speck in the vastness of the universe as we understand it....the idea that life should be found elsewhere in the solar system is pretty silly. Even if there are a million other planets which currently have life of some sort on them (and currently is a big deal - there could have been life on trillions of planets in the past which has since died out, there could be life on countless planets in the future, the universe is likely a very old thing) the odds are pretty small that we can observe that life at this point in our technological advancement. It is, in fact, quite possible that we will never be able to observe life on other worlds; if Einstein was right about the inability of matter to travel at or beyond the speed of light, and we can't find a way around that, we'll never be able to get very far into the universe.

While I agree that stating there definitely is life on other worlds is wrong, I don't think that is how Mom was saying it. By prefacing her statement with 'I agree with Ed' she was echoing the sentiment. Ambiguously worded, perhaps, but what I took from it was that it is her belief, not some statement of irrefutable fact.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I agree with Ed, life is all over the universe and we'll probably find some extra-terrestial life in our lifetime. Life is built in to this universe. By a designer? Maybe. But I see no actual proof yet to say that for sure.

"Life is all over the universe", you state that as if it's a fact yet there is no proof of it.

So my question is how can you make such a claim without any evidence while reserving your position on the existence of God until you see evidence?

The mathematical probability of planets around other suns was almost 100% long before there was any evidence for the existence of those planets. The mathematical probability of life existing elsewhere on at least 1 other planet around the 1022 to 1024 stars in the visible universe is also virtually 100%. It takes a very special kind of arrogance to believe that this is the only planet in the entire universe with life on it.

Are you saying probabilities = evidence?

I'm not saying whether there is or isn't life on other planets. I'm saying we have no evidence that there are.

 

[dblack]

No...

But I do believe that a non-intelligent and undirected natural process would, over time, produce the many things necessary for life and for life to evolve spectacularly. I also believe that liquid water and all the necessary chemicals for life are quite abundant in the universe.

I ass-u-me that you believe the creation process as described in the ancient story called The Bible?

What we have here is 2 Monkeys with a difference of opinion about where Monkeys came from. WYGD?

But if YWC is right, the reward is eternal paradise. If you're right, all you get is a deeper understanding of the natural world.

AJ has the satisfaction of a life lived to the fullest whereas YWC wastes his serving a fictional master in expectation of an imaginary "reward" that he won't be around to enjoy.

There's always a catch, eh?

I look at it like the lottery vs. investing in stocks. You'll make a lot more winning the lottery than you'll ever earn investing in the market. Who wouldn't want that? But a sensible person considers the odds. The chances that fantastical stories about winged sky people and angry gods smiting foes are the key to salvation seem somewhat less than me hitting the powerball, and I'd rather invest my intellectual energy in ways more likely to produce a return.

 

[Boss]

'
Give it up Bossy Man and YouWereBornYesterday !!

For thousands of years deep thinkers with far more subtle minds than you two characters have tried to prove the existence of God, and there have always turned out to be flaws in their arguments.
.

The only flaw in my argument is the assumption everybody can read and comprehend it. I have proved god's existence definitively, you just don't accept spiritual evidence, and thus, have no concept of spiritual existence. As my argument correctly states, god can never be proven to you. In order to meet your criteria, god would have to become a physical entity, because that is the only "evidence" you will acknowledge.

In order to drive home this point, I have juxtaposed what you believe, with someone who rejects scientific evidence in favor of "spiritual enlightenment," and rejects any argument you may present based in science. If you are trying to scientifically explain how rain happens, the evaporation process, etc., and they just look at you with a dumb stare, and say... but god didn't tell me that, so it's not true! What can you do? How can you ever convince that person? They've closed their minds to physical science, they reject any belief in it whatsoever.... so how can you prove anything to them, using science?

You are on the other side of this coin, you reject the spiritual evidence required to understand spiritual existence, the terms are greek to you, because you reject spiritual nature altogether. I can explain it until I am blue in the face, you are still not going to accept spiritual evidence, therefore, I can never prove god exists to you.

Too bad you have utterly failed to get past the FACT that spiritualism is a nothing more than a state of mind of a PHYSICAL BRAIN. All that you have "proved" is that you BELIEVE in fairies, ghosts, goblins and unicorns. No one is disputing your right to believe in nonsense however pretending that fairies, ghosts, et al are real does not make them exist.

That's not a fact, that is your opinion and it's defies logic. Even your own Darwinist theory says that if the behavior was superficial, it would have been discarded long ago. Species do not retain unnecessary attributes of behavior, for novelty sake. This simply does not happen in nature, and defies Darwin's theories. It's humankind's intrinsic connection to spirituality, that makes the most profound argument for the case, but you dismiss this as a meaningless anomaly, because you reject the spiritual evidence.

We can go over this once more.... "PROOF" is merely something you have faith and belief in, and perceive as evidence. You reject spiritual nature, therefore, you do not recognize spiritual proof. "FACTS" are merely things you have faith and believe are true, based on what you perceive as proof. Since you reject spiritual nature, you are incapable of accepting spiritual facts.

Don't worry, you have constructed an air-tight convention, god believers will never be able to penetrate your disbelief. As long as you continue to keep that door of your mind closed, it will remain closed, no one else can open it except for you. There is no need for you to spend all your waking hours, nailing boards across the door in these threads. I get it! Save you wood and nails!