Physical Proof that the God Exists

[Tomperi]

I have a hard time understanding this unstructured rambling, which doesn't seem to make any sense anyway. But I'll have a go..

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

Yes, cells reproduce by cloning, and off course they need another cell to clone them selves from. Cells are immensely complicated, but they did not start out working in the same way they work now. It's called EVOLUTION. The cells currently found on earth are the result of a gradual development from very primitive and simple structures, to the ones we see today. The older and simpler structures were phased out to make room for better adapted cells.That's called natural selection.

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.

The Earth is certainly NOT similar to a cell. A cell contains mobile subcellular components that perform different "tasks" to fulfill the purpose of that particular cell. Earth is just a lump of matter, bound by gravity, that has, during the course of 4.5 billion years, formed it's layered structure.

Please.. Study and understand the theory of Abiogenesis, and explain why you think it's not correct. Unfounded philosophy isn't worth anything.

 

[Alien Allen]

So after 5 pages I still see no proof there is a god

How many of these threads does it take to come to that realization for some??

 

[Tomperi]

So after 5 pages I still see no proof there is a god

How many of these threads does it take to come to that realization for some??

That's how dogma works. You can give them all the evidence in the world, but they're still convinced they're right.

And, the burden of proof lies on those that claim something exists, because you can't prove a negative.

 

[Teru Wong]

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.

Thank you very much for your reply.

A what-if in philosophy.
Consciousness in dictionary - awareness.

Fragments in sentences. Break them down without reasoning.
Living tissue is a cell. A cell is living.
A cell is dead. No longer alive.

A cell can be clone. A cell cannot be created.
The only logical explanation is that the Earth is a biological entity as a whole.
Logical, simple direction of science.

Nobody think of it.
Scientists only know how to ask why.
They yell and ask what? Why the Earth is not a rock?

Teru Wong

 

[Minor Axis]

And, the burden of proof lies on those that claim something exists, because you can't prove a negative.

But that does not mean it does not exist. Just that it can't be proven to exist. :ninja

 

[Tomperi]

But that does not mean it does not exist. Just that it can't be proven to exist. :ninja

True.. But if you're going to venture into a scientific discussion, supporting an extraordinary claim, you better have the extraordinary evidence to back it up, otherwise the argument is redundant.

 

[Minor Axis]

True.. But if you're going to venture into a scientific discussion, supporting an extraordinary claim, you better have the extraordinary evidence to back it up, otherwise the argument is redundant.

It really is impossible to have proof when it comes to spiritual discussions. Hence I usually come down on the side against those who say they can prove something like, oh you know, GOD.

On the other hand if an individual wants to limit their bedrock beliefs to what can be proven that is ok too, but I think it is rather limiting from an "open minded, willing to consider the possibilities" standard. So when you get into the realm of spiritual or supernatural, it is not prudent to go the "belief" route, but you can have a philosophical/ "what-if" discussions which I think are very healthy. For example a philosopher, might have a hard time accepting you live your life and when you die that's it. If that is it, then what was the point? Granted, there might not be a point, but from a philosophical view, it seems like there should be something more, possibly missing pieces of the puzzle. IMO, searching for those pieces is what moves science forward.

 

[Tomperi]

It really is impossible to have proof when it comes to spiritual discussions. Hence I usually come down on the side against those who say they can prove something like, oh you know, GOD.

On the other hand if an individual wants to limit their bedrock beliefs to what can be proven that is ok too, but I think it is rather limiting from an "open minded, willing to consider the possibilities" standard. So when you get into the realm of spiritual or supernatural, it is not prudent to go the "belief" route, but you can have a philosophical/ "what-if" discussions which I think are very healthy. For example a philosopher, might have a hard time accepting you live your life and when you die that's it. If that is it, then what was the point? Granted, there might not be a point, but from a philosophical view, it seems like there should be something more, possibly missing pieces of the puzzle. IMO, searching for those pieces is what moves science forward.

Having a religious discussion in a philosophical manner can be very interesting, and serve some people in a good way. You can sit and ponder on the meaning of existence, where we came from and where we're going, but making up stuff isn't going to help anyone. It might not seem like it, but I'm fine with all the things people believe. You can believe that the world was conceived when a giant hippo laid an egg, that's fine. But if you try to find facts that support it by lying, manufacturing, misunderstanding and quote mining, it's unacceptable. And that's basically all that people like creationists are doing.

I choose to categorize everything into one of two things: The real world, where everything, that's actually real, exists. And imagination, where paranoid delusions, God and brain eating zombies exist.

It's the likes of this guy, the one who made this thread, that really bugs me. He is a basic representation of what's wrong with religion. Claiming to have " Physical Proof that the God Exists" without actually showing any evidence. Instead, all he has come up with are his own fantasies he cooked up in his head. And he completely ignores any scientific fact I throw at him.

 

[Jessica]

God exists...okay if he does, and he can MAKE ANYTHING and DO ANYTHING consider this question

Can God create a rock that HE CANNOT LIFT?

 

[Jessica]

The answer is...well we don't know. There, God doesn't exist.

 

[thatguyjeff]

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).

Regarding #1, 2, & 3- according to this article, you might be wrong soon enough:

Biologists on the Verge of Creating New Form of Life | Wired Science | Wired.com

 

[Lord Stanley]

 

[Tomperi]

 

[Minor Axis]

But if you try to find facts that support it by lying, manufacturing, misunderstanding and quote mining, it's unacceptable. And that's basically all that people like creationists are doing.

I agree. Instead of looking at our existence from neutral point of view. Creationists try to twist the story to support their religious beliefs based on an ancient book without any substantive facts to back it up. A book written when the human race was super-superstitious. Written when plagues and other catastrophes were due to a pissed off maker, not just bad hygiene, a shifting plate, nature out of balance, or other scientific based occurrences..

 

[alice in chains]

I agree. Instead of looking at our existence from neutral point of view. Creationists try to twist the story to support their religious beliefs based on an ancient book without any substantive facts to back it up. A book written when the human race was super-superstitious. Written when plagues and other catastrophes were due to a pissed off maker, not just bad hygiene, a shifting plate, nature out of balance, or other scientific based occurrences..

your views are biased as well. i don't see any facts here. i see perspectives on what happened which is the same mentality as a theist. learn to argue and to not prove your opponents point.

 

[Minor Axis]

your views are biased as well. i don't see any facts here. i see perspectives on what happened which is the same mentality as a theist. learn to argue and to not prove your opponents point.

You don't see very well, lol... I don't try to prove any spiritual points, by using facts because I don't know of any. How about you? However, the comment about creationists drawing a conclusion and then looking for facts that support it, while ignoring alternative possibilities is pretty much a fact.

 

[alice in chains]

Athiests do the same thing. Reread my last post.

 

[All Else Failed]

your views are biased as well. i don't see any facts here. i see perspectives on what happened which is the same mentality as a theist. learn to argue and to not prove your opponents point.

The big bang is actually based in science with a lot of evidence. Creation myths are not.

 

[Minor Axis]

Athiests do the same thing. Reread my last post.

I'm not an atheist and despite you trying to label me, I'm open minded about all things spiritual. You just sound argumentative.

 

[alice in chains]

I'm argumentative for a reason...to make sure all options and statements and thoughts are refined to the purest nature of the idea. despise me all you want.