Physical Proof that the God Exists

[kelvin070]

You guys don't get his cunningness. You guys are just giving him more resources and feedback to work on his weird theories.

 

[Minor Axis]

The definitions of living things are restricted to the consciousness of living things. The existence of the brain-like structure is the only way to define “living things”.

Science disagrees with you. All living organisms contain control mechanisms. Brains like ours or animals, are more advance, but are not required to call something alive. You need to refigure your definitions. And I would not assume what a plant can or can't feel.

 

[Teru Wong]

"Science disagrees with you. All living organisms contain control mechanisms. Brains like ours or animals, are more advance, but are not required to call something alive. You need to refigure your definitions. And I would not assume what a plant can or can't feel."

What make the Earth different?

Lives need a suitable envirnoment and a SUBSTANCE to start with.
Do you think we migrant from somewhere else?
A planet with lives need a LIVING SUBSTANCE to start with.
Similar to the Earth's crust, living organisms belong to the Earth.

The only difference in-between the Earth and the planets nearby is ALIVE.

Scientists will agree with me. FOR A SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION.

Teru Wong

 

[Tomperi]

Scientists will agree with me. FOR A SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION.

Ehrm, no, simply no.

Planets are not, by any scientific definition, alive. Planets and stars are noting but a collection of substances, bound by gravity.

And I'm not sure what you mean with "living substance". All life on earth is made of substance. Please fill me in..

 

[Tree Fingers]

I think hes been reading Solaris

 

[Tree Fingers]

What make the Earth different?

Lives need a suitable envirnoment and a SUBSTANCE to start with.
Do you think we migrant from somewhere else?
A planet with lives need a LIVING SUBSTANCE to start with.
Similar to the Earth's crust, living organisms belong to the Earth.

The only difference in-between the Earth and the planets nearby is ALIVE.

Scientists will agree with me. FOR A SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION.

Teru Wong

I dont think they will agree with you.
Sorry to use your surname like this,
but you are very WONG
lol!

 

[Minor Axis]

What make the Earth different?

Lives need a suitable envirnoment and a SUBSTANCE to start with.
Do you think we migrant from somewhere else?
A planet with lives need a LIVING SUBSTANCE to start with.
Similar to the Earth's crust, living organisms belong to the Earth.

The only difference in-between the Earth and the planets nearby is ALIVE.

Scientists will agree with me. FOR A SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION.

Teru Wong

In the post I replied to, you said "The definitions of living things are restricted to the consciousness of living things." Maybe I misunderstood you but by this definition I thought you were saying that plants are not alive? Instead are you saying that both plants and the Earth is alive and they both have consciousness? From what we know (which could be wrong), the Earth does not meet the standard of being alive. Yes there are alive things living upon it in ecosystems, but as far as we know, these are independent organisms living on, dependent upon, but are separate from the Earth.

But lets go back to the original premise of your post, what does any of this have to do with "physical proof that God exists"?

 

[Teru Wong]

In the post I replied to, you said "The definitions of living things are restricted to the consciousness of living things." Maybe I misunderstood you but by this definition I thought you were saying that plants are not alive? Instead are you saying that both plants and the Earth is alive and they both have consciousness? From what we know (which could be wrong), the Earth does not meet the standard of being alive. Yes there are alive things living upon it in ecosystems, but as far as we know, these are independent organisms living on, dependent upon, but are separate from the Earth.

But lets go back to the original premise of your post, what does any of this have to do with "physical proof that God exists"?

Thank you very much for your reply.

What I am bringing up with is an hypothesis, "Lives in different levels".
A higher level of lives give birth to the lower ones.
It is definitely not a pseduo-science because of the statement below.

"No living organisms can be 'created' without any living tissue."

We are living on the Earth. Scientists normally regarded it as one of the planets in our universe which provided us with a suitable enviroment for lives due to the oribits and other causes. Whatever their claims are, they have failed to find out the origin of lives. Their failures due to one cause:
Their blind spot to look upon the Earth as a place for habitant only. Probably they have read too much about Genesis. The Earth is not just a breeding ground for miccroorganism, but it is exactly the origin (source) of all the living organisms. By referring to the statement above, the question about the origin of lives is the biggest joke ever in history. The Earth itslef is a biological entity which give birth to us by natural process of lives. This hypothesis is definitely different from other beliefs (e.g. Big Bang) because it based on a simple sentence that cannot be defeated by science.

The Earth itself contain living tissues for lives. Thus, the suitable enviroment of the Earth provide cross-reference and support to the fact that "the Earth is a living entity".

To be more specific, the Earth is a biological entity (a supreme being - note that it is not being created out of a supernatural power- in which, I am referring to the God in various religions). Lives are lives in different levels. Natural process of birth, growth and death to both the planets (a higher level of lives) and the living organisms inside cannot be violated. This hypothesis fully explained the absence of space arrivals, the presence of the God (a Consious Earth) and the myth of lives and death (natural process of lives). Thus, philosophy may has come to an end, since the truth has been found. By rearing all of us from our birth until death, nature of the God must be CHARITY and LOVE. Desires may have driven her away from her natural role. She does not mean to hurt you. Suffering from her struggle in heart, human turns them into wars in history.

The God is actually a conscious Earth.

It takes time for all of us to digest. At the meantime, it takes time for me to learn and fully finish this hypothesis.

I welcome any question or challenge from people in every field.

(The TRUTH cannot be bounded by academic subjects. A FACT should never affraid of being challenged. Papers in schools are waste papers. Science at home is still science, especially for an era of information technology.)

Teru Wong

 

[Minor Axis]

We are living on the Earth. Scientists normally regarded it as one of the planets in our universe which provided us with a suitable enviroment for lives due to the oribits and other causes. Whatever their claims are, they have failed to find out the origin of lives. Their failures due to one cause:
Their blind spot to look upon the Earth as a place for habitant only. Probably they have read too much about Genesis. The Earth is not just a breeding ground for miccroorganism, but it is exactly the origin (source) of all the living organisms. By referring to the statement above, the question about the origin of lives is the biggest joke ever in history. The Earth itslef is a biological entity which give birth to us by natural process of lives. This hypothesis is definitely different from other beliefs (e.g. Big Bang) because it based on a simple sentence that cannot be defeated by science.

There are three theories that I am aware of 1) the building blocks of life developed on the Earth as part of the Earth 2)or they were carried to Earth by something like an asteroid 3) or the religious view, God facilitated the creation of life in whatever manner including options 1 and 2.

The Earth itself contain living tissues for lives. Thus, the suitable enviroment of the Earth provide cross-reference and support to the fact that "the Earth is a living entity".

I can see how the Earth might be viewed in this manner, but just as easily it could be viewed as a terrarium that provides a suitable place for things to grow, but the terrarium itself is not part of the life, although life is directly dependent upon it.

To be more specific, the Earth is a biological entity (a supreme being - note that it is not being created out of a supernatural power- in which, I am referring to the God in various religions). Lives are lives in different levels. Natural process of birth, growth and death to both the planets (a higher level of lives) and the living organisms inside cannot be violated.

Are you saying that every planet in the universe that can support life is a supreme being? How many supreme beings are there?

While on some level, in some manner we are not be able to measure, this could be imagined. As I previously said I am sympathetic to the theory of Gaia and it might be possible. But mostly at this point in time, you are going to have to rely on faith to reach this conclusion, just like all the other religions of the world because there is no evidence that I am aware of that would indicate the Earth is alive, intelligent, that it makes choices, or has any attribute that a living creature has. It's just a hot rock, a good place to live on.

The God is actually a conscious Earth.

Your evidence for consciousness?

 

[Tomperi]

It is definitely not a pseduo-science because of the statement below.

So far you haven't put up any evidence supporting you, so yes, it is.

Pseudoscience Definition | Definition of Pseudoscience at Dictionary.com

"No living organisms can be 'created' without any living tissue."

Whatever their claims are, they have failed to find out the origin of lives

I'd like to know where you came up with that..

I posted a video on another of your threads on how Abiogenesis works, but you've obviously ignored it..

The Earth itself contain living tissues for lives. Thus, the suitable enviroment of the Earth provide cross-reference and support to the fact that "the Earth is a living entity".

Not sure I understand that sentence right.. But are you saying that because there are living organisms on the surface of the earth, the earth itself must be alive? That's like saying my chair can read because I sit on it.

I welcome any question or challenge from people in every field.

You obviously DON'T. I already challenged you to declare how you've come up with this hypothesis, what kind of research have you've done to have come to this conclusion. And you sill haven't done that. A theory without evidence is worthless.

 

[Teru Wong]

A Logical Proof

1. No living things can be created without any living tissue.
2. No living things can be created with non-living tissues only.
3. We can create living things with living tissues only.

4. All living things have living tissues.
5. The Earth has living tissues.
6. The Earth is a living thing.

7. No living things arrived from space up to now.
8. There are living things on the Earth.
9. All living things on the Earth come from the Earth.

10. As a result, the Earth created all of us (by birth).



For full size image:
http://sites.google.com/site/teru382/publications/others/validity_logic.jpg

Soundness: If black can be white, it is only a cheese.

#1. No living things can be created without any living tissue - T/F?
#2. No living tissues arrived from the outter space - T/F?
#3. The Earth has living things inside - T/F?

As a result, the Earth is a living thing. (#3 can be used as a cross-reference)

With reference to the wooden broad above:

A false (#4-6) by common agreement / general understanding must be true because of the conclusion (#10) the Earth is a living thing.

Therefore, soundness of the statements is a fatal blow to Logic.
If a "false" statement can be sound, it cannot be applied to new discoveries.


Teru Wong

 

[Lord Stanley]

Soundness: If black can be white, it is only a cheese.

:clap, you are out to fucking lunch

 

[Teru Wong]

:clap, you are out to fucking lunch

A man is preparing lunch for your grandchildren (if any).

The Earth is a biological entity.
Rapid expansion of our civilizations without realizing the fact is fatal.

Gobal warming and (esp.) desertification are threatening our future generation.

A logical proof (most people regard Logic as a subject, but it is actually not the case) is not only a direction for science. It can provide a solid ground ready for changes in our world.

Therefore, recognizing the truth that the Earth is a biological entity is the first step.

Teru Wong

 

[Tomperi]

1. No living things can be created without any living tissue.
2. No living things can be created with non-living tissues only.
3. We can create living things with living tissues only.

You STILL completely ignore the informational video I gave you on Abiogenesis. The theory of Abiogenesis has been carefully studied and scrutinized by some of the smartest people on earth. It makes sense from a chemical and biological perspective. I've asked you several times, how you came to the conclusion that "No living things can be created without any living tissue." but so far you've completely ignored my question. Until you answer this, your argument is worth nothing.

#1. No living things can be created without any living tissue - T/F?

The generally accepted theory disagrees. Microorganisms reproduce, but they do not contain any tissue.

#2. No living tissues arrived from the outter space - T/F?

It's not completely impossible that life was brought to earth by asteroids for example.

#3. The Earth has living things inside - T/F?

Well, only to a small depth. The core of the earth has a pressure of about 3 Million atmospheres and a temperature of almost 6000 Kelvin. NOTHING can live in those conditions.

 

[coolnishad]

I am a strong believer that God exists. When the sun rises and sets according to his will, there must be a super natural power for it, and that is God. Nature itself is a great evidence that God is controlling everything.

 

[Tree Fingers]

I am a strong believer that God exists. When the sun rises and sets according to his will, there must be a super natural power for it, and that is God. Nature itself is a great evidence that God is controlling everything.

No it isnt
Nature itself is a wonderful display of Darwin evolution,
Why must there be a supernatural power behind it?
Any proofs?

 

[Minor Axis]

I am a strong believer that God exists. When the sun rises and sets according to his will, there must be a super natural power for it, and that is God. Nature itself is a great evidence that God is controlling everything.

Heavy duty assumptions and commitment to a faith. Unfortunately no proof to back it up.

Guys and gals, this Newsweek article Heaven Can Wait deserves a read. While it claims that an afterlife can be proven, which I dispute, I admit I've always desired for there to be one (an afterlife) so while sympathetic to the concept, I am not convinced on the subject of an afterlife, of judgement (if judgement exists or what it consists of) or the existence of God in traditional terms.

So mostly this is a good food for thought article. What I found most interesting is the inclusion of the concept of the "metaverse" (the infinitely multiplying complex of worlds predicted by some versions of quantum mechanics) and the research now being done on NDEs- Near Death Experiences.

Admittedly, the multiverse, although a perfectly respectable concept in theoretical physics, is supported by no more empirical evidence than the soul itself. Afterlife studies, to coin a phrase, has been an empty field, at least until now. The AWARE study ("Awareness During Resuscitation") is looking at "near-death experiences" (NDEs)—the recollections of people who were revived after clinical death, defined as the absence of heartbeat and the cessation of measurable electrical activity in the brain. People with NDEs sometimes report out-of-body experiences, such as looking down on themselves from above and witnessing their own resuscitations. Obviously, if this is actually taking place—and not, say, a composite reconstruction of memories drawn from years of ER episodes—then the threshold requirement for life after death has been met: the separation of consciousness from the physical brain. "Near-death experiences show that clinical death may not be the end," D'Souza writes. Thus they support his larger point, that "neuroscience reveals that the mind cannot be reduced to the brain … consciousness and free will … seem to operate outside the laws of nature, and therefore are not subject to the laws governing the mortality of the body." The latter assertion has been at the crux of Western philosophy since Plato, but it's taken until now to devise an empirical test for it.

In the AWARE study, randomly generated images will be projected in the rooms of critically ill patients, in locations where they can be viewed only from above—by someone having an out-of-body experience, for instance. If patients who survive NDEs can identify these images subsequently—well, not to overdramatize, but several centuries of materialism in the natural sciences will have to be rewritten. The director of AWARE is Dr. Sam Parnia, a fellow at Weill Cornell Medical Center. He told NEWSWEEK that researchers at 20 hospitals have identified about 600 subjects for interviews. Parnia expects to publish his results in 2010.

 

[daniellllleee]

r
o
f
l

 

[Teru Wong]

You STILL completely ignore the informational video I gave you on Abiogenesis. The theory of Abiogenesis has been carefully studied and scrutinized by some of the smartest people on earth. It makes sense from a chemical and biological perspective. I've asked you several times, how you came to the conclusion that "No living things can be created without any living tissue." but so far you've completely ignored my question. Until you answer this, your argument is worth nothing.

The generally accepted theory disagrees. Microorganisms reproduce, but they do not contain any tissue.

It's not completely impossible that life was brought to earth by asteroids for example.

Well, only to a small depth. The core of the earth has a pressure of about 3 Million atmospheres and a temperature of almost 6000 Kelvin. NOTHING can live in those conditions.

Inside the Earth, not the crust. Biosphere inside the Earth (hydrosphere & atmosphere).

Living tissues. You break a CELL down and ask if it is still alive. Off-topicz.

You have living tissues in the beginning by birth.

A cell can be clone.
A cell cannot be created without another.
A simple cause-and-effect.

Scientists don't have a clue - an egg cannot be the beginner.
The Earth is not an egg.
A layered structure similar to a cell.

Teru Wong

 

[sharpies]

If planets are conscious living objects (as I stated in my hypothesis),

I personally think that you are having a lend of us, it is hard to believe that anyone could believe that if you make a statement, it must be true. I do find it fascinating that you started this sentence with the word IF but you got more forceful as you went along.

Planet Earth is alive, if planets are conscious living objects. This sentence is actually believable.